Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced 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 was Delete. Keilana^talk_(recall) 00:20, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advanced Theory

Advanced Theory (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

The article asserts notability but does not establish it. There are very few google hits for this particular theory, and the few there are seem to be repeats of the material here. Only sources are a blog and one magazine article. At best, it could be a subsection in the respective articles of some of the wikilinked people mentioned. The might also be conflicts the guidelines in WP:BLP as the article makes statements about living people. The only source of those statements appears to be the blog. Delete TheRingess (talk) 02:49, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete, seems to be a fringe theory at best. Or maybe I'm just not "advanced" enough. Lankiveil (talk) 04:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC).
• Keep. The magazine article was written by Chuck Klosterman who is notable and featured this article in his fourth book. If you look in the right places, there are more sources Doc Strange (talk) 12:02, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Appears to be a discussion of a concept in a single NN Esquire magazine article. Fancruft. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:48, 23 December 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.