Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peer Review fiction
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. See WP:COI and WP:CRYSTAL as well as the policies mentioned by others below. Eluchil404 20:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Peer Review fiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Advert for a proposed e-publishing method. Not even implemented yet. -- RHaworth 16:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete NN enough yet maybe after it's implemented. ILovePlankton 16:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete until it becomes the next Web 2.0 craze. An idea published in a thesis is just an idea. --Dhartung | Talk 16:31, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Original research -- someone's Master's thesis, as it says -- and WP:POV problems with "cliques of editors". And I can't find any objective reference to this anywhere, all cites are self-generated, so doesn't meet WP:Notable and WP:Verifiable. Accounting4Taste 17:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
response-the site is running, just started yes, but running, four members so far... however this is not relevant. the concept is original and in existence. I have made some changes to make it more neutral. removed "cliques' phrase. added more historical data and references. I believe firmly that this concept is the new direction for publishing and I simply wish to document its date of birth. --JDAdler 16:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.