Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transology

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 consensus to delete. Johnleemk | Talk 11:40, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Transology

Rambling, pretentious article about a non-notable project to design urban cars. NB. Not a copyvio (see talk page), just an insult to Wikipedia to simply copy and paste. -- RHaworth 13:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC)*

• Delete per nom - style also scrapes WP:NOR. PJM 14:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• I am not really sure why there is such an anxiety created by this link. Please do what you must, I apologize for making an attempt to introduce the subject here. Transology is an absolutely new discipline that vitally merges transportation planning, industrial design, and urban architecture, NOT some pretentious article. I am not personally offended and good luck in all of your future endeavors.-MJ
  • Brand new concepts generally need some time before they make suitable encyclopedic entries. I'm glad to see that you don't take this process personally and encourage you to continue contributing. PJM 17:50, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is actually quite interesting. Take a look at the website link provided in the article. Yes, this is apparently fairly new, but it is certainly verifiable. However—and this is a big one—the Wikipedia article is apparently a direct copy of the website. It must be verified that this is not a copyright violation. To the author: You must either provide verification that this is not a copyright violation or you must rewrite the article so that it is not a direct copy of the website. A picture or two to accompany the article would be good also. And finally the article needs to be wikified. •DanMS 02:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
• The only people who have written about this concept are its creators. There's no evidence that this concept has been accepted by anyone else, and added to the corpus of human knowledge. There are no sources whatsoever that are independent of the creators, the existence of which would demonstrate that the concept had been accepted by other people. Interesting or not, this article is original research, that Wikipedia is not the place for. Delete. Uncle G 14:59, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Well put; agreed. PJM 15:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please delete the article. We are publishing it on another respected academic press and it was an honest mistake to place it here. I did not understand the fundamental idea behind wikipedia and do so now. Yes, the work is an original contribution to the previous fields mentioned and as of yet has no larger audience. Again thank you for the critical commentary. I am sure in the future wikipedians will introduce the idea after it has been normalized. I do not mean any disrespect to the editorial culture here. Best --MJ

Thanks again for not resenting this process or taking offense to our comments. Cheers. PJM 19:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

• Delete Only 134 Ghits, which aren't all about the same thing as the article, and it's definitely original research. Good luck with your project though! :) peachlette 14:11, 4 December 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.