Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meyer's Law (Sentential)


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 14:15, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Meyer's Law (Sentential)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Confusingly written, but clearly WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. This is not a published theory. Catfish Jim  &#38; the soapdish  20:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nominator. Edward321 (talk) 02:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Have rectified some concerns, especially WP:MADEUP and WP:OR. Also many links have been added and the form is coming into compliance with wikis standards. Please reconsider delete, or, at least, delay decision while the page develops. (October 31, 2010; 11:43 EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.105.130.98 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Hey folks, I have been reading the policies, and I don't think this should even have been nominated: "Before nominating an article for AFD, please: 1) strongly consider if an alternative deletion process (speedy deletion, or proposed deletion) should be used. 2) before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." By the way, I am creator of the page, but didn't log in today. Hey how do I vote FOR my page? I see two votes against? Maybe I have ot log in first?209.105.130.98 (talk) 04:22, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep209.105.130.98 (talk) 04:28, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The patent is a step in the right direction, assuming it mentions "Meyer's Law", but we need third party coverage. Has this theory been published in any peer-reviewed journals? Has it been covered in any established publications? Also, it might be an idea to read WP:COI. Writing about yourself or your own work on Wikipedia is usually frowned upon. Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish  07:44, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * (edit: Just realised it wasn't a patent, rather filing for copyright...) Catfish Jim   &#38; the soapdish

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Delete Unreferenced, unpublished, and (in my opinion) not likely to be published in anything remotely respectable. The "Implications" section is particularly damning. Dingo1729 (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 02:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. This appears to be original research via synthesis. The references cited relate not to Meyer's Law but to fundamental work in linguistics or biology on which the proposed law builds. Neither of the publications by Meyer cited here are peer reviewed scientific publications. Cnilep (talk) 05:16, 8 November 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.