Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theories used in research


 * 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.  Sandstein  22:20, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Theories used in research

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A non-notable declined copyvio speedy that consists of a listing various theories used in certain fields. Each sub-list is apparently a copy/paste from various places on the web (most of which aren't compatible with BY-CC-SA). Aside from the apparent copyright issues, this would appear to be violating WP:NOTDIR, as it just is a "Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics". B figura (talk) 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete as nominator, for the reasons above. -- B figura (talk) 18:46, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as per nom and WP:NOTDIR. decltype (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. I'm not sure whether a list of this sort passes the threshold of originality; but it is a more or less random list of subjects, or more likely non-subjects, that neither provides navigation to other articles and fails to explain what these subjects have in common.  A far more baleful prospect is its open invitation to create new articles on subjects like "knowledge-based theory of the firm", which are unlikely to contain information or be read for edification or pleasure. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sweet Mother of God! Knowledge-based theory of the firm. I came too late, it seems. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep I think that was nominated as a speedy two minutes after its creation because it was believed to be a copyright violation; if that is the case, then it would be a speedy. On the other hand, if it's not a copyvio, and if this isn't a case of Cmcntsh (C. McIntosh?) being a sock, then I'd be interested in seeing if there could be something that explains the theories.  Certainly, this is a good faith nomination, but I have to laugh at the talk page entries for User talk:Cmcntsh: Welcome to Wikipediaf!  By the way, you know that article you wrote?  Well... Mandsford (talk) 20:30, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I did nom right after creation, since I saw it as a blatant copy and paste G12. It was speedied, but declined by Decltype (above). (The reason for the decline was that xe didn't feel it was a good speedy candidate since it was just a list). I'm not sure I agree with that, but since neither of us are lawyers, I thought I'd list it here rather than WP:CV. PS, I agree that biting newbies is bad, but I think copyright problems are just as bad, if not worse. (And not to badger, but why keep?) -- B figura  (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete for two reasons. First, this is indeed a copyvio -- anything that is derivative of the form of a copyrighted text is a copyvio unless it meets fair use criteria, which this does not.  Second, it is not in any case encyclopedic, being merely an agglomeration of theories that happen to be studied in a particular place. Looie496 (talk) 23:53, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Support WP:NOTDIR and copivivo concerns here and add a two-step note: (i) the article title is inappropriately broad, which is mendable, off course, but this brought me to (ii) that mere names of many theories (in that list) do not tell much. They should be at least wikilinked or explained, and I doubt it is always possible. Just a random example, "Mathematical Problem Solving" can refer to almost anything. Materialscientist (talk) 02:26, 24 October 2009 (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.