Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Secondary reference: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Creating deletion discussion for Secondary reference |
This is original research. |
||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Secondary reference}}) |
:({{Find sources AFD|title=Secondary reference}}) |
||
I would like to nominate [[Secondary reference]] for deletion. I have previously [[WP:PROD|PROD'ed]] it unsuccessfully. However, I still do not see that the concept is notable. The page has one article in its literature list (Doomen 2006), but I cannot find more that uses it in a relevant sense. Most Google Scholar hits are about "secondary reference points" or "secondary refernce material" or the like, which makes it difficult to find sources, other search engines gives even less relevant hits. The currently cited article is where the concept is where the concept was introduced, but neither Google Scholar or Semantic Scholar seems to have registered any citations to the paper at all. The page was created in 2007 by [[User:Jasperdoomen]], who also dePRODded it. Before the PRODding proces, it was tagged as <nowiki>{{Confusing}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Unreferenced}}</nowiki>. The latter may not be the appropriate tag for lack of referenes, but I'm not sure former has been adressed. //[[User:Replayful|Replayful]] ([[User talk:Replayful|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Replayful|contribs]]) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
I would like to nominate [[Secondary reference]] for deletion. I have previously [[WP:PROD|PROD'ed]] it unsuccessfully. However, I still do not see that the concept is notable. The page has one article in its literature list (Doomen 2006), but I cannot find more that uses it in a relevant sense. Most Google Scholar hits are about "secondary reference points" or "secondary refernce material" or the like, which makes it difficult to find sources, other search engines gives even less relevant hits. The currently cited article is where the concept is where the concept was introduced, but neither Google Scholar or Semantic Scholar seems to have registered any citations to the paper at all. The page was created in 2007 by [[User:Jasperdoomen]], who also dePRODded it. Before the PRODding proces, it was tagged as <nowiki>{{Confusing}}</nowiki> and <nowiki>{{Unreferenced}}</nowiki>. The latter may not be the appropriate tag for lack of referenes, but I'm not sure former has been adressed. //[[User:Replayful|Replayful]] ([[User talk:Replayful|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Replayful|contribs]]) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
||
*Is {{user|Jasperdoomen}} writing about this in Wikipedia in 2007 any relation to the author of the sole source, J. Doomen according to the citation, that is the "first occurrence of the term" in 2006? I think that our [[project:no original research]] policy might get another airing here. A quick look around seems at first glance to indicate that the ''only'' person to have acknowledged Doomen's invention is Doomen, until a second glance finds that Doomen writing in 2012 is just a re-publication with some light edits (e.g. "''Moby Dick''" instead of "''L'Etranger''") of Doomen writing in 2006. So it does look like this is self-publication in Wikipedia of something that has not only not escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by the world at large in any [[project:independent sources|independent sources]] at all, but isn't even continued by its own inventor in ''non''-independent sources beyond ''1 single source ever''. This is original research. '''Delete'''. [[User:Uncle G|Uncle G]] ([[User talk:Uncle G|talk]]) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 01:55, 3 March 2024
Secondary reference
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Secondary reference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I would like to nominate Secondary reference for deletion. I have previously PROD'ed it unsuccessfully. However, I still do not see that the concept is notable. The page has one article in its literature list (Doomen 2006), but I cannot find more that uses it in a relevant sense. Most Google Scholar hits are about "secondary reference points" or "secondary refernce material" or the like, which makes it difficult to find sources, other search engines gives even less relevant hits. The currently cited article is where the concept is where the concept was introduced, but neither Google Scholar or Semantic Scholar seems to have registered any citations to the paper at all. The page was created in 2007 by User:Jasperdoomen, who also dePRODded it. Before the PRODding proces, it was tagged as {{Confusing}} and {{Unreferenced}}. The latter may not be the appropriate tag for lack of referenes, but I'm not sure former has been adressed. //Replayful (talk | contribs) 00:40, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Is Jasperdoomen (talk · contribs) writing about this in Wikipedia in 2007 any relation to the author of the sole source, J. Doomen according to the citation, that is the "first occurrence of the term" in 2006? I think that our project:no original research policy might get another airing here. A quick look around seems at first glance to indicate that the only person to have acknowledged Doomen's invention is Doomen, until a second glance finds that Doomen writing in 2012 is just a re-publication with some light edits (e.g. "Moby Dick" instead of "L'Etranger") of Doomen writing in 2006. So it does look like this is self-publication in Wikipedia of something that has not only not escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by the world at large in any independent sources at all, but isn't even continued by its own inventor in non-independent sources beyond 1 single source ever. This is original research. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2024 (UTC)