Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Problem of interaction

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. Owen× ☎ 03:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Problem of interaction

This afd nomination was incomplete. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:33, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

• Delete looks like somebody's term paper that they heavily plagiarized off of random web pages on the Internet, original research and possibly copyvio. Peyna 17:35, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Can I ask why you think plagiarised? I'm sorry about the 'please format' but I'm new here (don't bite the newbies...?). Azushi
    • Because a google search revealed similar phrases to many of the sentences in the article, but no exact matches; thus suggesting that someone used them as sources and changed a few words around. It also looks very suspiciously like a term paper. Peyna 23:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Of course there were similar phrases! The topic is utterliy central to the philosophy of mind. I'm sure there a thousand articles called the same thing using very similar phrases because that's the philosophical terminology. I don't recognise your "Google approach" to identifying plagiarism; I could write you another "term paper" on how flawed a strategy that is. If it needs re-writing, then re-write it as you see fit (preferable to deletion, as stated by Wiki guidelines). I was simply plugging a gaping hole, as I saw it, namely that the problem of interaction had no entry on Wikipedia. I found this incredible - and this is certainly better than nothing.
• Delete There's an article in there somewhere, but this is just an essay. And the [Someone needs to format this correctly for me] isn't very endearing either! Dlyons493 Talk 17:41, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
• Delete looks like "original research." In fact, it looks like a term paper. Puts me in mind of some of the work of User:Supremevo01 interestingly enough. Mark K. Bilbo 23:25, 27 November 2005 (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.