Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Subjective universe


 * 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. The keep !votes, based on mentions of this phrase in Scholar, on the one good source, and on the theory author's academic status, are decisively outweighed by the deletes based on the absence of the significant independent comment on this theory which would be required for notability. If it is picked up and discussed by others, there may be scope for an article in the future. JohnCD (talk) 21:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Subjective universe

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Fails the inclusion criteria outlined at WP:FRINGE because there are not third-party independent sources which have noticed this idea. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete for now. I'm not sure about it being a fringe theory (it has been published in at least one accademic journal, and appears to have won a contest in another) however I do wonder about notability and the possibility to write an article based on multiple third party sources. It would seem the only sources available right now are Song's own, which is no good for an encyclopedia article. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 01:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. With 496 mentions of the phrase on Google scholar, there is obviously enough material to write an article. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 01:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. None of those seem to be relevant to the subject of this article, which is a particular notion called "subjective universe".  For instance, the article entitled Jung, Hegel, and the Subjective Universe pretty obviously has nothing to do with the subject of this article.  The relevant google scholar search for this AfD would be this one, which gives no independent sources at all.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep The article seems to have at least one good source. It is impossible for me to judge the importance or not of this theory. Better to keep for those who are interested. Kitfoxxe (talk) 05:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Both sources are written by the originator of the theory.  The "one good source" is presumably the one on the halting problem that was published in a real journal, but does not address the subject of this article.  Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep This is borderline, because the paper is new and hasn't picked up much attention (at least not yet); however, Daegene Song is a legitimately published researcher, and it seems that the intent of WP:FRINGE is to prevent amateur yahoos like myself from writing articles about our own crazy theories, not Oxford Ph.D's. Plus, his idea is incredibly interesting and even potentially revolutionary. So in this case I say let it slide.... -Jordgette (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. No, that is the purpose of WP:OR.  WP:FRINGE theories are often crazy theories published by people with some credentials.   Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strong delete. See my above comments to all of the "Keep" !votes above. This article has no independent sources published in reliable sources that directly address the subject (see books, scholar, news).  Reliable third-party coverage is needed, per WP:FRINGE:
 * In order to be notable enough to appear in Wikipedia, an idea should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.
 * This requirement is clearly not met. Sławomir Biały  (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - two sources by', not about the subject. Completely lacking reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 01:32, 11 January 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.