User talk:J W W Lawson

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages![edit]

Hello, J W W Lawson. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by John from Idegon (talk) 10:11, 14 January 2015 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:J W W Lawson[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:J W W Lawson requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. John from Idegon (talk) 10:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Contested deletion[edit]

This page should not be speedily deleted because... (your reason here) --124.190.208.86 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC) I fail see where the article is in breach and no explanation has been given, unless an explanation is provided and the right to delete must question the credibility of Wikipedia. Many of the articles in Wikipedia are based of academic research. The paper emerged from academic research on a vital subject in a search for a theory to explain reality. The conclusion is that no real estate valuation exists. This is a real problem when you considers that most valuation are carried out for mortgage purposes which is a measure of risk if this is viewed in the knowledge of the large amount of funds invested in this commercial activity. The thesis concludes with the proposition that price theory is a valid proxy for valuation theory. 124.190.208.86 (talk) 10:45, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No, they are not. We have a specific policy banning original research. Academic papers are not usable here until they have been vetted. Even if this was acceptable, your userpage is not the place to put it. However, it is not now nor will it ever be usable. Please note this is not a comment on the quality of the work or the viability of your thesis. I haven't read it nor do I need to. As I stated in my first sentence, This is not the place for any academic paper. Please look up what a tertiary source is. That is what ALL encyclopedias are. John from Idegon (talk) 10:54, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]