Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Open Closing Theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 12:05, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Open Closing Theory

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

Not even really sure what category this BS should be under, but it definitely seems to be entirely WP:OR and fails WP:N. AvruchTalk 00:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete Psudo-marxist, anti-capitialist, anti-establishment, with a dash of existential angst. Could be the foreword to a groundbreaking work of philosophy, or just incomprehensible rambling. Unfortunately, in either case it is still OR, and it has no place on Wikipedia. No ghits --NickPenguin(contribs) 01:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete-no refrences and lack of notable research.--Quek157 (talk) 02:44, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete: Completely (as in 100%) OR..Not for WP. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete OR essay. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep with strong cleanup - article is POV and almost unreadable, lacks references, etc. - but I fail to see why it should not be included, even if the badly necessary cleanup makes the introduction an "one theory considered by most to be lunatic is...". --.Tom. (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, if we could find a reliable source which states that "Open Closing Theory is a lunatic theory" I'd be all for that, but... what we have here is the problem that, for an encyclopedic topic, to have people say bad things about you might be hurtful, but to have nobody say anything about you is downright deleterious. Pete.Hurd (talk) 17:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Basing around many past, suggested ideals, the theory is a branch of existentialist ideals, of non-existence, and realistic views, of the futility of human existence. Being a strong believer in the futility of human existence, I want to find some sense in all this. But Google Scholar has never heard of it. Google main brings forth only a couple of hits that seem to have to do with financial forecasting models, which are probably also undesirable subjects for articles, but appear to have nothing to do with whatever this is about. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete due to OR. It's a rantBillscottbob (talk) 20:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete Strong on OR, weak on notability. Tim Ross·talk 00:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep with strong cleanup - I don't understand as was stated by why this should be deleted, I will undertake the cleanup if necessary. Although the language is somewhat incoherent, and contradictory, the theory seems to be based upon some sort of marxist theory, maybe even a dash of objectavism in there, thus the article should be kept. (talk) 21:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
    • For this theory to be acceptable Wikipedia material it has to be already published material (no original research). If there is published work about this theory then it would be okay for keep and cleanup. Until citatons to published work can be provided, this article can only be interpreted as OR. Billscottbob (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Delete It's OR. Merenta 15:46, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Delete for lack of sourcing. No evidence this is anything more than the creator's idea. Someguy1221 21:35, 30 November 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.