Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human Reserve Theory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete. Shimeru (talk) 20:46, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Human Reserve Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

A theory made up in university one day. Zero Google results for (except this article). Contested prod. ... disco spinster   talk  00:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

I am currently looking for more sources. I plan on updating and editing this article frequently until it is made perfect I removed names from the article to avoid lawsuit and ranted discussion for now.
 * My Opinion

I would like to rename the article from "theory" to "hypothesis" if i could, to lessing the potential problems (so that it is "Human Reserve Hypothesis" instead of "Human Reserve Theory")

it was a gengeral mistake on my part given that a theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world and a hypothesis is a tentative conjecture explaining an observation, phenomenon or scientific problem that can be tested by further observation, investigation, etc. --Phdwesjc (talk) 00:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * To quote from the article: is a theory of thought, with no supporting or debunking evidence. Just about says it all really.  Delete --  role player 00:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No you are 100% wrong. A theory isn't a fact, it simply has supporting evidence or a lack there of. I know this because I have proposed several theories in the criminal justice field. I would like to change the article title from from theory to hypothesis to avoid further debate about its validity. --Phdwesjc (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

also wikipedia argues that this "is not a place for things that were made up one day", given that statement you have completely nullified many Wikipedia entries, even the Fermi paradox itself, which was "made up one day during lunch" --Phdwesjc (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * delete because Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought, no matter how interesting. Thparkth (talk) 01:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is partial original thought, but based loosely on many other scholarly articles, if you wish to delete it, go ahead. I see a immense weakness in how publications are made here. I am quite reluctant to say if this post gets deleted I will never offer my services to Wikipedia again, if the rules have been broken, so be it.. enforce them upon me as you do anyone else

but I ask you this:

Does Wikipedia not believe that our greatest need is for the general public to be able to get better information, to have an opportunity to learn the better fruits of our day and age, to enhance our knowledge as a whole? If you deny this, than you have broken the very pact for which Wikipedia is constructed. farewell--Phdwesjc (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Phdwesjc. I'm one of the many Wikipedia editors who check new articles to filter out the obscenities, vandalism, and outright nonsense that thousands of people decide to create in the English Wikipedia every day. I'm happy to state my opinion that this article, "Human Reserve Theory" is not one of those - which is why we're discussing it here rather than simply having an admin summarily delete it :) Still, the goal of Wikipedia is not to publish new ideas or introduce new terms to scholarly discourse, but rather to summarize and explain what is already out there "in the wild".


 * Both discospinster and myself have tried searching Google for the phrase "Human Reserve Theory" and not found any hits at all (except this article!). That's usually a pretty good indication that people are not writing about, discussing, or searching for the idea, at least not under it's current name (or under "hypothesis" by the way). Of course Google is not the whole sum of human knowledge, and you may well have access to printed books or journals or other offline sources that confirm the notability of the topic. If you do, it would be a really good idea to cite them in the article. Otherwise it's pretty likely that it will be deleted for being non-notable as a result of this discussion.


 * Be aware that even if that happens, it doesn't mean you can't recreate it in future if you can pull together some appropriate citations.


 * I do understand how frustrating this can be when you genuinely just want to add something interesting (and it IS interesting) to the encyclopedia, but notability is really the most important criteria for the creation of articles in Wikipedia. You might like to read WP:NOTE to understand the background to this whole issue. I really hope this won't discourage you from participating in Wikipedia.


 * Thparkth (talk) 02:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you seem far more respectable than the others, you haven't been short and spiteful towards me in the least. I have added one source related to the zoo hypothesis, and in the mean time I'm working toward adding more to this as soon as possible, I will return to campus Monday and the references will be greatly expanded then.

Also, this is a subject that has been discussed by many, even on well known radio shows like Coast to Coast AM, where physicist discuss these types of things all the time. Is it possible to cite a radio show as a source? that certainly doesn't seem reliable, thats why I haven't done it yet. --Phdwesjc (talk) 02:28, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

If at all possible I would like someone on the Wikipedia staff, or yourself, to change the "theory" part of the title to "hypothesis", I do not think I have that ability as a normative user to perform such action. --Phdwesjc (talk) 02:31, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete no usage of "human reserve theory" or "human reserve hypothesis" found in google, google scholar, google books. to article creator: the ONLY criteria for inclusion of material on WP is that the material is verifiably notable, ie, some significant measure of documented discussion of a subject can be verified by any reasonably competent researcher (eg a typical WP editor). no indication of verifiable notability is given in the article, and none is being found by us, the other researchers. if a notable radio show discussed this idea, the name of the person proposing the idea will have been mentioned (even if its just the radio show host), and if the discussion was notable, ipso facto someone will have commented on it in print at some point. that's the criteria. This is not a criticism of the idea itself, or the person(s) who first thought of it, first mentioned it, or the people currently discussing it. We dont wish to delete this article, we may simply be required to delete it if it shows no indication of notability by our standards. again, if this idea becomes notable in the future, article can be recreated quite easily.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Again I have cited another source where it has been discussed, I will add more references and "scholarly" articles as I develop my article further.
 * I'm gathering references as we communicate this very moment, if you will not allow me time to amend such additions to this article, choosing instead to delete it, then unfortunately, I will not place my research back on this site. I myself have written articles on this subject, but they remain unpublished, so you can see the contradiction I am faced with. Academically it would be inappropriate to cite oneself as a source, especially if those writings remain unpublished. --Phdwesjc (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. As Phdwesjc says above, there are no published sources with which to verify the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 03:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I have added numerous sources supporting the human epidemic hypothesis. --Phdwesjc (talk) 03:34, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: You seem to be using Wikipedia as a place to publish your hypothesis. This is not what the site is for.  The subject of the article has to have been significantly discussed elsewhere.  This is what we mean by "notable".  The references you have added do not discuss the "Human Reserve Hypothesis".


 * You said "Also, this is a subject that has been discussed by many, even on well known radio shows like Coast to Coast AM, where physicist discuss these types of things all the time." Are you saying that the radio show contains a discussion of the "Human Reserve Hypothesis" per se, or just a discussion of the types of things related to it?  Do you recall the show it was discussed on?  The web site has an archive of past shows here.  ...  disco spinster   talk  03:56, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Done - I'm not devising my own theory, adversely these are things not clearly defined in the human Lexicon. So when you do a Google search for the basis of its existence, then its more than likely possible that no results will show. I am a avid user of Google's services, but I am sure you as well are aware of how easy it is to exploit Google's search parameters. --Phdwesjc (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete fails WP:MADEUP, WP:OR and WP:RS Only one gHit outside of Wikipedia, and it's not even a reliable source. If only WP:MADEUP could be a CSD category. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

'''
 * 'I no longer wish to debate this, if it has broken the criteria for publication, like I stated before, do what you must. The fact that I could forge a blog discussing this material is far less disturbing than the fact that you would allow it as a creditable source of outside discussion''. I highly recommend thinking about the integrity of this site's mechanics... --Phdwesjc (talk) 08:57, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, such a blog would not be considered a reliable source, as per WP:RS -- Boing!   said Zebedee  09:49, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said, IM DONE. Pot calling the kettle black Goodbye --Phdwesjc (talk) 17:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete Have now done some searching and I can't find any reliable references - and as the author says, it is at least partly WP:OR -- Boing!   said Zebedee  18:20, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.