Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oganization story

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 of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oganization story

This one's tricky, I would say Original research. There are lots of issues here:

• the article appears to be verifiable research, but is almost entirely self-referential. The majority of cites appear to be references to books/papers written by the wiki article author.
• The other 2 cites in the article appear to be the only other people in this field.
• Starting with the misspelled title, the article itself is incomprehensible, which seems suspicious for.
• A wiki link to Antenarrative appears in the article, which seems to be a neologism created by the author

MNewnham 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete as original research, or more accurately, postmodern cruft indistinguishable from random noise. I am listing Antenarrative for the same reasons. Anville 16:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Josh Parris#: 00:48, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Stifle 21:53, 24 December 2005 (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.