Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sociological Space


 * 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   snow delete. Article was deleted by  on 02:01, 2 August 2010. (Non-admin closure) Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sociological Space

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

PROD-contested by an IP whom I'm assuming is the article creator, not logged in. Per WP:OR, WP:NOTESSAY.  elektrik SHOOS  02:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The essay criterion is much overused, as here. This edit summary, however, makes it clear that this is a novel hypothesis that the author just invented to propound directly in Wikipedia without proper peer review and external publication first, in contravention of our No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete -- per no original research. The editor admits the entire article is a creation of his own hypothesis. — Cactus Writer (talk) 05:09, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I wish there was a speedy deletion category for articles which are blatant OR. (I might actually propose this, come to think of it.) read the logic as to why it doesn't exist, and i understand. disregard.  elektrik SHOOS  05:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as original research. AllyD (talk) 07:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Original research, and unreadable. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:19, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clearly original research; just another way of stating that cultures can conflict, but stated in a pseudo-formal way.  RJC  TalkContribs 14:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as Wikipedia is not a dictionary or an indiscriminate collection of information. Armbrust  Talk  Contribs  17:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, unencyclopedic, barely coherent. Hairhorn (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - WP:UGH!. Carrite (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2010 (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.