Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laws of information systems


 * 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 and cleanup. The subject is notable; AfD is not the place to resolve article issues. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 06:48, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Laws of information systems

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

Although there is substantial content, the article does not mention what the subject is. Instead, it goes on to list what may be categorized as part of the subject. The article is a list of loosely connected laws that has not been substantiated by any constitution or scientific experiment. It is set out to fabricate a conclusion, rather than define or describe the subject Emana  (Talk) 23:30, 16 April 2009 (UTC) Theorem 1 : The energy flows and storage within an information system consist of those with information content and those without information content. Prooosition 9: Only information devices can make information meaninghl to the information system of which they are parts.
 * Question I'm not sure there's a reason for deletion (rather than improvement). This would be pretty clear evidence of notability of the topic.  It includes things like:
 * So keep for now. 17:44, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not questioning the notability (although the article itself does not assert any). The article at IEEE-Xplore you have referenced says that the content of the paper is a proposal and does not show that it is a widely accepted theory in its field of study. Only that it was presented. The article for Laws of information systems goes on to list theories instead of actually starting out with an explanation such as, "The laws of information systems are the basic rules of .... governing the... in the studies of computer....." Currently, the article reads like a rough draft to somebody's research paper. Because of its substantial content, I do think it should be sandboxed to the original contributor's userspace instead of a straight delete.-- Emana  (Talk) 17:21, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and clean up. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 19 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.