Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interaction information

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 Keep - information is taken from the creator's thesis rather than being the thesis, hence not original research. Yomangani^talk 23:39, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Interaction information

Original research. First edit confirms that the source is the author's thesis.

Alos including Total correlation Nuttah68 16:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I will admit that I don't understand any of this, but can you please explain in which way these articles contribute new knowledge beyond what follows from the references? If they don't, I can't see how the content would be original research. up+land 19:04, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. The seminal McGill 1954 article exists and uses the term in this sense. Therefore not original research of the author of this article. --Ioannes Pragensis 20:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: I wrote this page, and I cannot comprehend why someone is so eager to delete it! The text is largely from my thesis, as I said, but IT IS NOT MY ORIGINAL RESEARCH!!! I have cited enough sources to make this OBVIOUS to anyone. Look up the sources!!! If you feel there needs to be additional citations, then please stick a ^{[citation needed]} where warranted, and I (or someone else) will try to address the problem. Dfass 22:48, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Comment. You have stated that both pieces come from your thesis, by definition -A dissertation advancing an original point of view as a result of research- If you are now saying that the fact that it's is from your thesis is irrelevant and it is merely a reproduction of previous work that contains nothing original, and can show that, I'll accept that this AfD is not needed. Nuttah68 08:31, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • Response: Dear Nuttah68, a Ph.D. thesis typically contains a long literature review. The contents of these two articles are adapted from the lit review section of my thesis. The relevant sources are all given on the article pages. Why are we having this discussion? What part exactly do you feel is original research? Let me know, and I will try to address it. Otherwise, please un-flag these articles. Thanks much.
• After the comment from (author) Dfass, I suggest a speedy keep, as I assume that any doubts the nominator may have had have been dispelled. Unless there are objections not mentioned in the nominaton, of course. (Nuttah68, I think you should have asked about it at User talk:Dfass or at the article talkpages before taking it to AFD.) up+land 04:02, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep, this is a well-written and well-cited article on a notable topic. Vectro 23:29, 17 October 2006 (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.