Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Model of Freedom
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. The Placebo Effect (talk) 17:21, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Model of Freedom
- Delete per WP:MADEUP - this appears to be nothing more than somebody soapboxing their theories, and is entirely WP:OR Mayalld (talk) 12:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Strong keep. Never heard of this theory, however it is notable - try a google search for "Model of Freedom" + "Mijnd Huijser" - this turns up multiple independent sources such as [[1]], [[2]], [[3]] and [[4]]. The article is poor - non-critical and somewhat promotional stuff - but it should be kept and improved. Springnuts (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)- It still fails per "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". 3 out of 4 of those files you linked appear to merely be book reviews and interviews with him (centering on his book). Per WP:NOT#OR, theories should be "part of accepted knowledge". This is a newly proposed theory. We can verify that yes, he has a theory, and yes, he's talked about his theory, but that's not good enough. To write about his theory, it has to have some real acceptance from reputable sources. As I said below, it may pass verifiability in a trivial way ("His theory exists. He said it. Here's what it is"), but it isn't passing notability TheBilly (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. You are quite right - I had skimmed the google results too quickly and missed their weaknesses. Springnuts (talk) 14:44, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- It still fails per "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought". 3 out of 4 of those files you linked appear to merely be book reviews and interviews with him (centering on his book). Per WP:NOT#OR, theories should be "part of accepted knowledge". This is a newly proposed theory. We can verify that yes, he has a theory, and yes, he's talked about his theory, but that's not good enough. To write about his theory, it has to have some real acceptance from reputable sources. As I said below, it may pass verifiability in a trivial way ("His theory exists. He said it. Here's what it is"), but it isn't passing notability TheBilly (talk) 13:34, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment The article has been edited - thank you both for your comments. I am not experienced in wikipedia and have edited the article adding internal links and references. Please let me know if you have any other suggestions. User:Julia1982 —Preceding comment was added at 13:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Verifiability =/= notability. Doesn't pass notability. TheBilly (talk) 13:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
- Delete. Non-notable theory by a business consultant: seems like a teaser for what he can do for clients. More appropriate for the consulting company's webpage than an encyclopedia. RJC Talk 19:18, 3 January 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 article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
