Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qual


 * 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. Punkmorten 16:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Qual
Non-notable protologism, and possibly nonsense as well. Originally tagged for speedy delete but removed by article creator hateless 19:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I'm not sure if this is speediable, but article creators are not allowed to remove speedy tags from their own articles. Danny Lilithborne 19:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I was thinking of tagging think earlier today for the same reasons, but I would like to have the author explain just what the heck this article is about. Wildthing61476 19:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete I can think of at least 5 other names for this concept that have been bandied about. I think the most common is "stuff".  Not-notable. - Richfife 20:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This is the author..... I was told that I should be able to post a definition of a word that is not used in traditional dictionaries. The theory, which is what it is, is based on theortical physics and its implications relate to social philosophy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.61.47 (talk • contribs).
 * Reply Several problems. Regardless of what you were told, Wikipedia is not a dictionary.  Also, all articles are required to be verifiable, notable and cite reliable sources.  This article satisfies none of the above.  It also strikes me as original research, which is also forbidden.  It is not enough for you personally to believe in the importance of the article or concept, a significant number of other people must also believe in it and write about it in reliable publications. - Richfife 00:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Addendum One last thing, if you created the term "qual" yourself, then you should not be the one to post it here as it is a violation of the vanity standard. - Richfife 00:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I will have my colleagues support the theory and we will make sure to expand upon the article with verifiable sources. Just give me some time so I can get it all together on the page. It isn't going to hurt to allow this to stay until that is done; I will keep you notified. You can contact me at "sugarglazedring@yahoo.com". Thank you for listening. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WrAth2110 (talk • contribs) . — Possible single purpose account: WrAth2110 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Comment I'm not sure you realize just how far off this article is. Make sure you read verifiable, notable, reliable sources and original research before you put too much effort into it.  Also, recruiting people to add to an article is still a violation of vanity rules.  If no one is motivated to write about it that wasn't involved in it or told to, then it really shouldn't be here. - Richfife 20:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * DeleteOR, dictionary definition of neologism.Edison 20:01, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's very confusing and gives no clear explanation as to why it's so "improtant." --Masamage 01:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As with anything, the gain of followers is something that is beneficial to the theory. I am not "recruiting" and the supporters that I will ask to post have studied the theory at my table in science. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.194.61.47 (talk • contribs).
 * Who developed this theory, then? --Masamage 07:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete Your table at science? You must be joking.  This "theory" of yours has absolutely no evidance to support itself nor do any of your claims. --Redking99 — Possible single purpose account: Redking99 (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * Delete Are you serious? This is utter nonsense!  Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of science can tell that you don't know what you're talking about.  I could get more followers if I went around preaching that the world is flat. xcaratacusx 16:00, 8 October 2006 — Possible single purpose account: xcaratacusx (talk • contribs)  has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.
 * 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.