Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Galambosianism (2nd nomination)

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. I also moved the article's talk page to Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Galambosianism (2nd nomination) howcheng {chat} 18:52, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Galambosianism

As someone who's actually read the works of Galambos has pointed out, Galambosianism as we describe it doesn't actually exist. The previous deletion discussion ended up as a keep under the assumption that the few sources we had were accurate about the subject (the actual arguments for deletion centered around notability); as it turns out, they're probably not. Please read the talk page of the article for a discussion on why Galambosianism as a concept is likely someone's interpretation of Galambos' ideas rather than any actual part of his work. As such, whether it's amusing to read or not, it should be deleted as being original research and not verifiable by credible sources, unless someone can show otherwise. Galambos' actual ideas may yet deserve an article, but Galambosianism probably isn't it. JRM · Talk 14:11, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

• If it's inaccurate then fix it, don't delete it. You can merge to the Galambos article if you want. Gazpacho 00:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

  I can't. Dollars to doughnuts almost nobody can, since the topic is so obscure. I dragged this to AfD to see if people agree with the comments left on the talk page. The only "merge" I could perform is replacing the whole thing with a redirect. I don't like that sort of "sneaky" delete. JRM · Talk 10:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete it. My reasoning is on the discussion page of the article. In sum: "Galambosianism" is a non-concept, unrecognizable term to anyone that is even remotely familiar with his work, and who doesn't want to mock it. It is similar to calling Einstein's work "Einsteinianism" instead of Special Theory of Relativity, etc. The article itself cannot be saved or merged because it makes no sense, is not true, is poorly referenced and researched, and would not apply to either Galambos' biography or to his Theory of Volition. I must say again that it is not the oft-referenced, so-called "obscurity" of the works of Galambos that make this article unable to be fixed. Unless of course by "obscurity" you mean that you can't learn about it yourself on the Internet in 60 minutes or less. Additionally, I concur that a "re-direct", along with maintaining this current article, would be absurdity squared. The article on "Galambos" is also almost complete dross too. I would be willing to go into more depth in support of my opinions if anyone would like me too. There are also thousands of normal, moderately intelligent people out there who have read and studied the works of Galambos, i.e. "Volitional Science". Unfortunately for my case, they just don't seem to read or care about Wikipedia. AK 18:17, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
• Google again gives little reason to suppose that "galambosianism" exists. Delete. As for "volitional science", the term does seem to exist -- though this page gives me no reason to think that it's more substantial than any of numerous other self-described (fringe) "sciences". -- Hoary 13:45, 6 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.