Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Media naturalness 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 keep. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America1000 02:57, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Media naturalness theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This reads to me as WP:OR. Over 30 of the 40 or so refs are to a handful of papers by Kock, the person who coined the term, and where the others are available online, they do not reference the term (for example, one cites Kock but prior to the paper in which the term was coined, which would be WP:SYN).

The vast majority of the substantive content is drawn directly from Kock's original papers. Guy (Help!) 07:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:10, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Nearly a thousand citations on GS in total. More than 100 citations since early last year, apparently none of them by the author of the theory.--Eric Yurken (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:09, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
 * keep could be cleaned-up however seems notable per Notability--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:07, 29 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. Certainly not WP:OR. One of the previous refs. in the article seems to have been published by a journal that was a accused of predatory publishing, which may have triggered this AfD. That ref. has been already deleted. Most other refs. appear to be to legit journals, some very prestigious ones.--Senortypant (talk) 14:14, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Something is OR if it was just made up on the spot. The sheer number of external sources here make it clear that was not the case. South Nashua (talk) 14:11, 2 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep the article indeed cited one-work more than is should be, but the sheer number of resources available for expansion outweighs that. The further reading section has invaluable resource (from different sources). Dedication by editors who have access to these print source can transform this article in unexpected way, in the meantime and other appropriate tags can be used to call willing editors attention. But deleting this is not solution. –Ammarpad (talk) 05:29, 4 December 2017 (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.