Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flowerpot Technique

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 No consensus, so keep. --Deathphoenix 14:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Flowerpot Technique

original research I suppose delete. Melaen 19:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - questionable if it is notable[1] and also seems to be a copyvio from here. NicM 19:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC).
• Weak keep Article must be deleted as it is copyvio from [2] but content is legit and seems interesting, thus a summary could be made. —This user has left wikipedia 20:11 2006-01-25
• Comment: Google search showing 15 authoritative sources: [3] to confirm its not bullocks. —This user has left wikipedia 20:13 2006-01-25
• Delete as per NicM and for being borderline WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers 22:01, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• delete, nn, orig research, copyvio... it's not got much going for it! _└ ^UkPaolo/_talk^┐ 23:18, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• comment The American Journal of Pharmaceutical Education mention the technique, so its not orig research and may well be notable as there are several article by different authors who all use the technique (indeed important enough to be used as a keyword). But is copyvio, so delete until a better article comes along. --Salix alba (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep A quick look around the internet seemed to indicate to me that the term/experiment is semi-widely used and known within the scientistic community, especially with regard to sleep deprivation studies. I'm not sure how there can be a copyright law on the concept since the simular situations can and do occur in nature and have been observed by multiple independent sources. Walrus125 00:16, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I've now rewritten to avoid copyvio, notable as above. --Salix alba (talk) 00:50, 30 January 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.