Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relational Interpretation Competitive Evaluation (RICE) 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. Courcelles 08:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Relational Interpretation Competitive Evaluation (RICE) Theory

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Article whose central topic seems to be the work of two researchers and is sourced exclusively to their own work. I cannot find papers or books that could ascertain that this is a notable or established concept. § FreeRangeFrog croak 22:37, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like yet another essay. Looks like something that should have been sent to a peer reviewed journal? NOT. Dloh  cierekim  08:08, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * ALSO NOT Dloh cierekim  08:21, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Regarding "not a scientific journal" - this is true, but if this theory has been published and cited in enough places that it meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines, then writing an article that explains the topic is not a problem. Many articles on graduate-level mathematical topics exist and, because the topics are notable, they stand even though they are written like a scientific journal article might be written.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:32, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:23, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
 * True, but the idea is not supported elsewhere. Dloh cierekim  05:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of any evidence of WP:Notability in the article and lack of evidence when I did a Google web search of "Relational Interpretation Competitive Evaluation". davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  00:40, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete The subject may be too esoteric that it does not meet our notability guidelines. It may be a real theory but very hard to substantiate in our requirements. Mkdw talk 01:22, 28 December 2013 (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.