User talk:Grumpy one au

Welcome!

Hello, Grumpy one au, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, such as Chamberlain's Theory of Strategy, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines, and may soon be deleted.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Chamberlain's Theory of Strategy

The article Chamberlain's Theory of Strategy has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Article exists primarily to promote a book whose notability is questionable at best. No links to references given, unable to verify. Few relevant Google hits, mainly to sites selling or promoting the book. Author is also not notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 23:45, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm not an administrator (or moderator, as you call it), but just a regular editor -- though one who has been active here for quite a while.

I'll admit this is not a cut-and-dried an issue as many deletion discussions, which is why I went with the lowest level procedure instead of a formal article for deletion discussion. However, there are some issues that concern me.

First of all, the only reference that is linked to anything accessible online is the official site for the book that sets forth the theory in question. While there are references cited to books, there is nothing we can easily look up to verify this information, short of going to a good research library. Nothing else from online sources is cited. Second, there appears to be nothing online that I can find where this theory is discussed, or even recognized, by others independent of the author. In other words, no one else has talked or written about the theory, at least none that I can find. The ability to independently verify the veracity, or even the existence of a subject is a key tenet of Wikipedia, or any other encyclopedia for that matter. If nothing else can be found with a simple Google search that at least mentions the subject (aside from those who sell something related to the subject or stand to benefit from its promotion or success), that indicates a lack of notability, and often a parallel attempt to promote a particular point of view, product or service. Promotion of anything is specifically prohibited by Wikipedia policy.

This is not to say that there is necessarily anything wrong with the theory. Frankly, I have no idea whether it's true or not. But the fact that apparently no one else disconnected from the author is even discussing the theory for better or worse means that this article may not meet Wikipedia notability standards. Additionally, there may be problems with original research, which again runs afoul of our policies. This could likely be solved by rewriting the article to a form which doesn't appear to be an academic presenting his own work, but someone else writing about another person's work. (Now if you are Mr. Chamberlain, then we definitely have a problem.)

Read the pages I've linked to here to get an in-depth view of the issues involved, and if you have questions, feel free to ask. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:58, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have summarized the issues very well, and thank you for establishing that you are not Mr. (or Dr.) Chamberlain. If this theory is only two months old, and has not been peer-reviewed in the appropriate academic journals or even mentioned elsewhere, then I can say with a great deal of certainty that the theory is not yet notable by Wikipedia standards. Over the course of time, this may change as others discuss the theory; if that happens, than an article will likely be in order. But for now, it is highly unlikely that this article would survive a formal deletion discussion, given the newness of the theory. I suggest you remove the article for now — you might want to save it in a user-space draft (see this page) so you can work on it later — and if and when the theory gets attention from others, create the article again. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

An administrator has deleted the page. Thanks for your understanding. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]