Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LCM4MP


 * 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   keep. Withdrawn by nominator. – Juliancolton  | Talk 01:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

LCM4MP

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Is this article notable or not? I cannot make head or tail out of it. I suspect that it may be complete WP:OR. A Google search for ""Limited Capacity Model for Messages Processing"" turned up only this Wikipedia article. (see below for two refs) I had held off AfDing it to give it a chance to grow, then I saw that the article creator had personally attacked the deleting admin of his SOAP article here, so I can no longer assume good faith. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:05, 5 April 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN BY NOMINATOR The article has just been extensively referenced, to the point where I no longer believe an AfD is the way to proceed. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: ref'd article above is tagged for deletion so copying the text here. It is at Talk:Meadows_for_GSA_President: "this article is important to the decision making of thousands of graduate students at one of the 20 most important research facilities in the free world. So go get a life and maybe a job and girl, because policing free thought and democratic processes on Wikipedia has no future socially beneficial products to offer human kind." I42 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, such comments have nothing to do with this article's notability. Perhaps I shouldn't have even linked to it.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Appears to be a school essay. The majority of citations are to Lang and she is aparrently behind the theory - which she calls LC4MP, not LCM4MP. This article needs context, indication of notability, references and the like. I42 (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And I see we do have coverage of Lang's theory, here and here. I'd happily withdraw and rename article accordingly if this turns out to be notable. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:14, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I saw a few articles on Google Scholar that cited Lang's that looked independent from it. Looks like this Wikipedia article is work in progress btw, with a citation missing at the end, it'll probably look better in the future. Narayanese (talk) 20:54, 7 April 2009 (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.