Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The operating system of the brain (2nd nomination)


 * 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. § FreeRangeFrog croak 05:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

The operating system of the brain
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Bringing back to AfD to be discussed. (It was speedied as a copyvio before the discussion got going last time.) There is a claim that the text is or is being licensed CC-BY-SA, so the copyright status is perhaps less relevant to the discussion than the contents. This looks to me like pure original research WP:OR, and it is sourced to the author's website. Totally non-encyclopaedic. Peridon (talk) 12:26, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. Clear violation of WP:OR -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:45, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Horribly written OR essay about a subject for which an article already exists, cognitive psychology.TheLongTone (talk) 14:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep Mr LongTOne,do you really know if the cognitive psychology link you have given covers the matter in this article? Please do not comment quickly with over enthusiasm. This article i added here is a newly published content in an per reviewed journal. i had given link to the journal page in references section of article--kvraghavaiah (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom- essay filled with original research. --Passengerpigeon (talk) 15:08, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
 *  No Deletion, Keep it . It looks much different now. It is neither a copyright violation nor a direct copy of the full text from source  --kvraghavaiah (talk) 1:58, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Copyright/copying or how it looks is not the problem. The problem is that it is your own original intellectual work, and encyclopedias do not carry original work - please do read WP:OR. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:59, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Ugly WP:OR.-- cyclopia speak! 08:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 *  Keep  link to the peer reviewed journal where the content is published is given in the article references section. I am surprised why so many people are overlooking the article and recommending deletion when they do not have patience to verify the article content, copyright and references given clearly-- kvraghavaiah speak!  10:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You can Comment as many times as you like, but only one keep or delete is allowed per account. The closing admin (not one who has expressed an opinion here) goes by the arguments rather than the numbers. The keep or delete is to show your position. Everything else is comment. Peridon (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And you're still missing the point. Wikipedia does not host versions of original work, not even with a reference to where it was first published. For a work to be notable, we'd need multiple independent sources talking about it, not just a link to the work itself - and if we had those, we could perhaps have an article talking about the work, but still not a reworded version of the work itself. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)


 * comment I gave reference to the peer reviewed journal page (in the references section) where my research work is published. I think, such data from independent sources can be published in Wikipedia. The content is published in the journal with title 'happiness and sadness' (The same concept and content as in this article).I will see if I can upload a copy of the pdf i received from the journal publishers as proof, because the article access directly from the publisher's website needs payed membership --kvraghavaiah (talk) 13:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * No, nobody is disputing that you had the work published, and an uploaded pdf won't make any difference. You are either not listening to or not understanding what people are actually saying. Wikipedia does not publish original work, and does not republish works that have been published elsewhere - it writes about such works from a third-party perspective (like "In his work XXX, YYY said so-and-so..." or "Theory XXX said that..." etc), but only when there are independent sources offering significant coverage of the work. As an example, look at Theory of relativity. Does it republish Einstein's actual papers on the subject? No. Does it write about his theories from a third-party perspective? Yes. Does it rely on multiple independent sources which write about his work? Yes. If you want to have any mention of your work in Wikipedia, you need to find those multiple independent sources which write about it in order to demonstrate its notability - and even then, it would not be presented in the way you have done -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 06:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Your own publication of your paper is not an independent source. An independent source is one written by someone else, with no connection to you or your publishers. It is also doubtful that it is a reliable source, as the publisher looks to me very much like a vanity publisher. I see no evidence that it is a respectable peer-reviewed source. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 08:08, 17 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete. Subject is a POV-essay resembling a blog-post, not a truly encyclopedia article.  Also, technically this is redundant content, subject already covered in a scientific & encyclopedic manner at Human brain and Brain. Shearonink (talk) 15:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is a personal essay promoting its author's personal opinions. There is no evidence whatever that the concepts described are notable, or that they have received any coverage whatsoever by anyone except its author. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 18:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Snow delete per WP:SNOW. Nobody who edits Wikipedia regularly could read this and not see original research. The problem is not that individual sentences can't be verified, it's that this is clearly not an encyclopedia article, it's some sort of essay or weblog entry.  Bearian (talk) 23:23, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete of course. Fringe original research. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:18, 17 June 2014 (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.