Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latent human factor


 * 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 of the debate was delete - Liberatore(T) 20:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Latent human factor
"Latent human factor" gets seven google hits. None when filtered by "Lisa Williams". The survey "published online" is a blog. If this is a real study, there should be real sources. Otherwise, I'm inclined to believe this is a joke article. User:Reyhani, not the article creator, but the blogger cited, removed external links in the article and the prod notice without comment. I'm not sure why, but the article still appears unverifiable. I'm open to verification if provided. Otherwise, delete. NickelShoe (Talk) 21:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC) I disagree strongly, it might be unverifiable right not, but see what happens in a few weeks time when this study is circulated in academic circles. Being new to wiki I am sorry for any mistakes on our part but please do not just dicredit this study. This study is of great importance to our interpretation of how teams work when they have to succeed. It explains the phenomena of why "underdogs" win at time when it seems impossible. In short, please bear with us. We hope to also post the entire study or at least important pieces of it. We feel that this study is a contribution to the content of wiki and will be appreciated by informed readers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyhani (talk • contribs) 17:48, April 6, 2006.
 * Delete as unverifiable. Feezo (Talk) 22:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment If it's not verifiable right now, it should probably still be deleted. If it becomes verifiable later, then it should be posted then.  NickelShoe (Talk) 04:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Original research and unverifiable Imarek 00:02, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 02:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Imarek. WP not a crystal ball, etc. Perhaps someday this will be a notable topic; not today. KillerChihuahua?!? 11:03, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

What a pity that you are all looking at this matter so pesemistically to not value good material. Can WP not pride itself by being timely and even ahead of other medias. WP should be proud to contain such material and I truly hope that this research will not be deleted and we will not be robbed of this valuable contribution. PS googling something should really not become a standard of judging, especially when we are dealing with fresh academic research —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Reyhani (talk • contribs).
 * I understand your position, but "fresh academic research" needs peer review, yes? And Wikipedia doesn't have the kind of setup to do that, so we have to wait it out.  You read WP:V and WP:OR, I assume, but simply disagree.


 * As far as Googling, that's just our way of looking for references when none are provided for us. We do that so as not to jump the gun on calling something unverifiable. NickelShoe (Talk) 04:28, 11 April 2006 (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.