Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perfect box 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 delete. Apart from the creator, everybody agrees that this is spam for a non-notable subject. It probably also doesn't help that the content reads like the output of a business jargon random text generator.  Sandstein  10:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Perfect box theory

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

"Perfect box theory" is a non-notable subject that has not received significant coverage in reliable independent sources. It is also the title of a self-published book that the creator of this article cited in another article (WP:SPS, WP:REFSPAM). The article Perfect box theory was created in late July, not long before the "perfect box theory" Twitter account emitted its first tweet, which, along with the accompanying website www.perfectbox.org, suggests that this article is part of a promotional campaign (WP:PROMO) by the creator(s) of "perfect box theory". Shortly prior to creating this article, the creator of this article created at least two draft articles (here and here) that were rejected at WP:AFC and subsequently speedily deleted per WP:G11 (unambiguous advertising or promotion). Biogeographist (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 14:49, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete Advertising/promotion for a non-notable subject. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 18:16, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Do Not Delete I have contributed for this page based on my book reading. The book itself published in July, 2021. Hence, tagging this article with author's promotion campaign is inappropriate. My previous articles are rejected due to selection of wrong topic and writing in essay format. This mistake does not make writing about any topic as promotion. It seems that user Biogeographist (talk) is biased against this article/topic. More notability from independent source is possible in future upon citation in any work, article. However, relevant cross explanative citations are already added and also be added in due course. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshmirat (talk • contribs) 18:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * And the evidence that I am "biased against this article/topic", instead of doing what any active and conscientious Wikipedia editor would do, is nonexistent. Whereas the fact that you created an article about the subject of a self-published book is pretty much a "smoking gun" that this article is promotional. Biogeographist (talk) 18:57, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Notability is not determined by future citations that might exist, but by those that already do. Moreover, "cross explanative citations" that merely give background material and don't discuss the subject of the article itself don't count, either. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I am agree with XOR&#39;easter about notability concern. But, contention of user Biogeographist is quite suspicious. As per general promotion guidelines of Wikiepedia, article should not redirect to outside links as well as it should not contain any information which is showcasing the promotion of any particular person, event etc. The information which added in this article neither have any promotional content nor its redirecting to any third party links. Judging anything simply based on limited area is not the right way to increase the authenticity of any wikipedia article. Instead, I urge Biogeographist to analysis the situation on the basis of subject matter.Rakeshmirat (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I analyzed the subject matter and came to the conclusion that it is non-notable, which is sufficient as a deletion rationale, and which you have conceded is correct. Even if my conclusion about the promotional nature of the article is incorrect (but I see no reason to doubt it, given all the facts I mentioned), still non-notability is sufficient reason to delete. By the way, I will note that I did not rush to nominate the article for deletion. Earlier this month, my first step was to graciously spend time editing the article to conform with Wikipedia style and to add cleanup tags, and then I moved the article to draft space so that you could fix the tagged issues, such as notability, if possible. You moved the article back to article space without sufficiently fixing the article (of course, non-notability can't be fixed in Wikipedia, which would explain your failure to remedy the issue), so deletion is the next step. I tried to help you. Biogeographist (talk) 13:51, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Biogeographist Point Noted. Moved to Draft for updation and validation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshmirat (talk • contribs) 11:05, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have reverted the move. Do not move it again.  This discussion should complete and an early draftification to avoid scrutiny is not acceptable. User:力 (powera,  π,  ν ) 00:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Delete no evidence of coverage in secondary sources. PianoDan (talk) 19:52, 29 November 2021 (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.