Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the miscellaneous page below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result of the debate was blanked per the suggestion below which is a solution to all viewpoints expressed in this debate. Daniel (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Lakinekaki/Bios theory
This is a copy of a deleted article kept in user space in violation of Wikipedia policies: USER and CSD criteria 4. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment: The original AfD for Bios theory is at Articles for deletion/Bios theory. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. A May 2006 deletion of a mainspace version doesn't preclude further work in userspace.  This could lead to a good article, so it it appropriate in userspace.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been worked on: there is direct evidence from User: Lakinekaki that he is simply keeping it in user space to allow people access to it in defiance of the deletion discussion. ScienceApologist (talk) 15:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * That's absurd. I improved novelty definition that had errors, and citations are being added to the citation page. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete, this has not been worked on in a very long time. If the user in question shows a good faith intention to keep working on it (and explains why they haven't touched it since 2006), I'll change my mind.  --UsaSatsui (talk) 05:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep, WP:GNG: ...secondary sources, provide the most objective evidence of notability. The purpose of citations page is that people add secondary sources as they find them. I don't have access to journal indexing services, like Thompson, nor to other paper based catalogs/indexes. All I can use is Google Scholar search, and not everything is published on the internet. As soon as someone gives citation to a secondary review of bios, Bios page will fully meet all WP policies and criteria for inclusion. I did correct the error that existed in the definition of the novelty. Also, content moved to user space for explicit improvement is excluded...CSD #4 That is precisely the purpose of the citations page, to improve references for the bios page. Lakinekaki (talk) 07:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * So why haven't you worked on this in over a year? --UsaSatsui (talk) 13:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the article is lack of citations of secondary sources, and those are being added. As I said, I don't have access to indexing services, so I hope people who do will add something there. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Note that when article was started, WP Notability guideline was different and there was no explicit need for secondary sources, but only for publications in independent sources, which bios has. Lakinekaki (talk) 17:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete Wikipedia is not a web host, and I note that this article comes up 7th when you Google for 'Bios theory'. It's one thing to allow people to keep an article on a user page for a short time, quite another for it to remain there for years which is basically a way to get around the deletion (and of course means it can be made as POV as the editor wishes, etc). Doug Weller (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, WP placed nofollow on all external links, and that is why even user pages become well ranked on Google. By that I mean MANY user pages, not only mine. Here is an example . So should we all delete our user pages because Jimbo Wales decided to disrespect all the contributions, sources, and references, and give them no credit in the eyes of search engines?Lakinekaki (talk) 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Per SmokyJoe. Actually, this appears well-referenced and deserves to be in the mainspace. It may be worth recreating the article and letting it have another shot. II  | (t - c) 22:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Consensus can change, but what was said in the old AfD is still true today. We aren't a webhost and if this article hasn't been touched in a long time it isn't hard to assume that it isn't meant to be touched for a while.  I'm not an expert in dynamical systems, so I can't see if my being unable to make heads or tails of it is my fault or the fault of the theory/article, but it doesn't seem to make clear claims.  Article hasn't been touched for ~18 months.  While we have disclaimers that userspace isn't mainspace, we need to reign in some of the long term storage in userspace of articles deleted by the community. Protonk (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Blank in case the user wishes to come back and work on it. Blanking it will render the page useless to search engine results. -- Ned Scott 08:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this constructive idea! Lakinekaki (talk) 08:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete in compliance with policy. Antelan  15:11, 26 July 2008 (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 page's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.