Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logical Cube
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Logical Cube
Sorry, but this is pure original research. Google search for "Logical cube" antipattern produces 0 hits [1]. I'll change my vote to keep if any cites for this antipattern in the relevant literature can be produced.--EngineerScotty 18:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom- PresN 18:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. The author clearly does not realise that humans are Cubic lifeforms that rotate a 4 corner face lifetime. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 18:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Weak Delete There's actually a grain of truth in this, but this isn't the place to plant it. Got me thinking, though. I'll bet there's more substantial work out there on a similar theme, but with a different metaphor. - Richfife 20:57, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- If we can find it, and source it appropriately, I'd happily change my vote to merge or redirect as appropriate. My objection is only that this appears to be OR; I've no issue with the veracity of the claims made. --EngineerScotty 21:00, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. I'm sticking with the OR, even if this stuff is true it still needs sources and verifications. Tychocat 07:55, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- As others have stated, veracity is not the issue. Original research is. There are things in computing that are known as logical cubes. There's a concept in databases, and a concept in 3-D modelling. There is also a logical cube in the philosophy of Cecil Frederick Russell (see this and this).
This article is not about any of them. This article describes a purported anti-pattern. The article cites no sources, and I can find no sources discussing this purported antipattern. The appears to be the publication of a novel concept directly in Wikipedia, and thus original research. Delete. Uncle G 11:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Delete because it is not just (probably) original research, but also unclearly expressed and sounds rather like claptrap (even if there may be some psychological/ergonomic sense in it). Also because the author has disappeared from Wikipedia, not linked the article to anything external and not defended it here. PJTraill 20:40, 16 July 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.
