Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secondary reference


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 01:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Secondary reference

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

I would like to nominate Secondary reference for deletion. I have previously PROD'ed it unsuccessfully. However, I still do not see that the concept is notable. The page has one article in its literature list (Doomen 2006), but I cannot find more that uses it in a relevant sense. Most Google Scholar hits are about "secondary reference points" or "secondary refernce material" or the like, which makes it difficult to find sources, other search engines gives even less relevant hits. The currently cited article is where the concept is where the concept was introduced, but neither Google Scholar or Semantic Scholar seems to have registered any citations to the paper at all. The page was created in 2007 by User:Jasperdoomen, who also dePRODded it. Before the PRODding proces, it was tagged as and. The latter may not be the appropriate tag for lack of referenes, but I'm not sure former has been adressed. //Replayful (talk &#124; contribs) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Is writing about this in Wikipedia in 2007 any relation to the author of the sole source, J. Doomen according to the citation, that is the "first occurrence of the term" in 2006?  I think that our project:no original research policy might get another airing here.  A quick look around seems at first glance to indicate that the only person to have acknowledged Doomen's invention is Doomen, until a second glance finds that Doomen writing in 2012 is just a re-publication with some light edits (e.g. "Moby Dick" instead of "L'Etranger") of Doomen writing in 2006.  So it does look like this is self-publication in Wikipedia of something that has not only not escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by the world at large in any independent sources at all, but isn't even continued by its own inventor in non-independent sources beyond 1 single source ever.  This is original research.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete I hate to be so very primary with my deletion rationale, but crimeny....this is utterly fitting of why WP:NOTMADEUP (started by Uncle G himself ironically for a full-freakin'-circle moment!) was created.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 02:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what this means, since all things on Wikipedia have been made up one day, and as for the 'reliable source', I leave it to you to judge whether the journal in which it appears qualifies as such. Jasperdoomen (talk) 13:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 03:10, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  07:34, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: This appears to be a poorly written summary of a philosophical essay. There is no indication that this is a notable concept in philosophy. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: No indication this is a notable concept. StreetcarEnjoyer (talk)  21:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete: No, this is not a notable concept in philosophy. ATDT (talk) 07:36, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:TNT or redirect to Secondary source. Bearian (talk) 19:43, 7 March 2024 (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.