Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Temporal preservation-cause theory

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 both articles. Joyous! | Talk 16:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Temporal preservation-cause theory

Original research, admitted as such in the article itself, no Google hits, unverifiable. --Huon 22:49, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• I also nominate Temporal anti-paradox theory, which is a not-quite-redirect to the above, also no Google hits. --Huon 22:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Original research. Viridae^Talk 22:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Both. More of a neologism - it's not an uncommon theme in time-travel stories, after all - but definitely something the author's made up himself. Tevildo 22:59, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete; original research. --Gray Porpoise 23:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
• Delete not even original, not likely search term. SM247^{My Talk} 01:55, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do not delete either articles; Cannot be proven or disproven anymore than the grandfather clause or the Novikov self-consistency principle, Novikov's work is original as well, whether published or not. --Ventralshark 04:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability not truth. Original research in the Wikipedia context means new research/analysis not previously published, which is by definition not verifiable in the Wikipedia sense. 24.19.184.243 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:NOR and Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms 24.19.184.243 04:35, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Don't delete; Mark as original work warning and leave it be, let the public decide for themselves about its validity. --Physical 04:33, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I suggest you take a look at wikipedia's policy on original research. Viridae^Talk 04:38, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as keeping it is damageable to the credibility of Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 04:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both nominated articles per WP:NOR. --Christopher Thomas 05:28, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles. Original research. Mike Peel 05:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete both articles. Unless it can be referenced to an existing source, it doesn't belong on WP. -- Tivedshambo (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
• ALRIGHT!!! DELETE IT ALREADY, I WROTE THE ARTICLE, JUST DELETE IT, I'M TIRED OF BEING DISCREDITED!!!!--Cutesmartguy 17:29, 4 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.