Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rafie’s Law

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. - Bobet 00:30, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rafie’s Law

Non-notable astronomical theory. A Google search brings up nothing relevant (nor does one with alternative punctuation), and Google Scholar has nothing applicable to say on the matter. Mike Peel 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

• If you had instead tried the name of the journal article that was cited both in the article's introduction and in the article's "references" section, you would have had more success. Uncle G 19:33, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
  • True. But that doesn't establish the use of the phrase "Rafie's Law", which is what the article is supposed to be about. A Google Scholar search for the title [1] finds the article, but no related articles. As noted by HEL below, the adsabs entry for the article [2] shows zero citations. Mike Peel 20:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
    • It doesn't need to establish the use of a phrase. Looking for usages of phrases is dictionary thinking, not encyclopaedia thinking. A problem with an article title is something that can be simply addressed with the rename button to give the subject a better title. Encyclopaedia thinking is looking at the sources (both cited and potential) and evaluating them to see whether the article is verifable and whether the concept discussed has been fact checked, peer reviewed, published, and acknowledged by others, becoming part of the corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 00:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• You're correct. I'll adjust my thinking accordingly. Thank you. Mike Peel 08:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Non-notable; it's nothing more than numerology. The Smithsonian/NASA ADS Astronomy Abstract Service finds zero citations to the published paper. Also a search on ADS on the author's name finds this as his only published paper. HEL 20:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I came here to say exactly what HEL said. Melchoir 04:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notability is the wrong deleteion criterion; there are plenty of obscure topics worth writing about. The problem with this article appears to be that its numerology, and has no basis in science. linas 06:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
  • The deletion criterion is actually in a tag on the article: Wikipedia:No original research. That policy is aimed squarely at theories that have not been acknowledged by the world at large beyond their creators and proponents. So in addition to considering how many people have cited the paper, we should be considering how much peer review occurs during the process of being published in Astronomical and Astrophysical Transactions. Uncle G 09:35, 2 November 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.