Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norby Test


 * 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. J04n(talk page) 12:08, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Norby Test

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested prod. Original research article about the author's ideas on artificial intelligence. On the talk page he states that he hopes "it will garner interest", that he has failed to get his ideas published in peer reviewed journals and that this material has not been published elsewhere. Classic OR. andy (talk) 10:32, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * delete • I'd be willing to reconsider if Norby had peer-published. The concept of computers programming computers is at least half a century old, and the practice (in varying degrees), is almost as old as practiced by Paul Abrahams, Michael Harrison, and others. The narrower unique part is the 'test' Norby proposes. My take is publish or perish, and from a dire lack of prior citations, the article perishes from lack of publishing. --UnicornTapestry (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete due to a complete lack of reliable sources discussing this topic at all, let alone in depth. It seems to be made up and therefore not notable. Cullen328 (talk) 00:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Article appears to fail core policies, including WP:OR, WP:N, WP:NOT, and WP:V.  I also searched Google without finding references.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2011 (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.