Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future Map

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. - Mailer Diablo 12:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Future Map

Future Map (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Self-promotion by Donald Heathfield of his concept. Original research. Note the use of three sock puppets to make it look as though others are interested in this idea. -- RHaworth 05:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Nonsense. --N Shar 05:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete I have looked at the "Big Picture" - original research, self-promotion, non-notable concept, unsalvageably incomprehensible management-speak and sock-puppetry. CiaranG 11:57, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete--Rudjek 18:13, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Original research, non-notable, Most of the links don't work. This article is on a roll here. --TommyOliver 18:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• I think there's a "Delete" here somewhere, but I disagree with the reasons given forth so far. I don't know if it is was necessarily against guidelines to create a page about yourself or something you created if it's notable enough, and this guy does have some outside magazine sources as references. I just wish I could check them According to WP:OR, if someone else has published it, it's not original research, and there's an implication (not a statement, an implication) . The weblinks at the bottom, though, are completely useless. As for the "nonsense"...Okay, just reading the article, my eyes glaze over. Just seems like a load of business-babble. That doesn't make it nonsense, just unreadable. Now, if those sources check out, and if someone else has worked with this idea unrelated to the author, and if this article can be cleaned up to be actually readable, I'd throw out a Keep. As it stands, though, I'm afraid it's a Delete. By the way, have you proven sockpuppetry, or is it just assumed? --UsaSatsui 22:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Just assumed. The most telling thing is that none of the three has edited any other article. -- RHaworth 00:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Wikipedia:Notability (science). –trialsanderrors 06:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete -- really not significant enough to warrant an article -- appears to be the product of one or two people (also, and let's put this out there -- rather a nonsense/contentless concept if you ask me.) Sdedeo (tips) 07:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete — WP:BOLLOCKS. Rosenkreuz 14:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
• delete It does not read like nonsense exactly, but it does seem extremely vague. Almost all the references are from one fundamental source. The Oxford conference is the most conventionally respectable, but it does not seem clear that the papers on the agenda have any particular connection with the viewpoint in the article. This is not yet notable. If it becomes so, a more meaningful article could be written DGG 21:45, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per what everyone else has said. Lesnail 03:02, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

If it was a legitimate blanking, then I apologize for reverting. 黒雲 16:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

• Do not delete I strongly disagree with the proposal to delete. None of the reviewers have presented any conceptual argument or claimed any experience in future studies, scenario planning or business management. I guess it is the novelty of the concept that provokes the negative reaction. The concept has been accepted in business and futurists’ community. The article on the Balanced Scorecard is rather similar, yet the Balanced Scorecard was also new in 1993. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ann50 (talk • contribs) 17:37, 28 January 2007 (UTC).
  • I think the unencyclopedic style of article and the manner of its creation provokes what is arguably an unnecessarily negative reaction. WP:AUTO is very good reading, as is WP:NOTE. It's often the case that newcomers to Wikipedia are bitten by not being familiar these policies and guidelines. What's normally a friendly and supportive atmosphere seems to go by the wayside where new articles are concerned. Can I suggest you read WP:NOTE, and then see if you still think the article should remain. CiaranG 18:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I still can't find anything independent of the author, but this PDF is better written and referenced than the article, if anyone wants to investigate further. CiaranG 18:11, 28 January 2007 (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.