Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graphic-analytical method
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. Eugene van der Pijll 18:11, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This "method" is a non-notable invention of the author (Valentyn Stetsiuk), who appears to have no academic credentials and to be the only person to have used it. Judging by his page, it doesn't even get plausible results. Delete. Mustafaa 17:55, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
About the author: http://cf.linguistlist.org/cfdocs/new-website/LL-WorkingDirs/people/personal/get-personal-page2.cfm?PersonID=8280
Delete. Non-notable, spurious. The author did not realize that Wikipedia is not the place to submit such material. It is a personal method of his own devising (no original research policy), and it does not seem to be clearly formulated or expressed. He also has no credentials in the field that I know of. The key issue here though is not even his lack of credentials: the article itself is spurious. Decius 17:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
This is also self-promotion, since this is his own personal method (the aforementioned Valentyn wrote this article himself). Decius 17:28, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. If printed in a peer-reviewed journal (not very difficult, nowadays), I'll opt for recreation, until then, this is internet kookery. dab (ᛏ) 17:36, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When the only reference is a geocities page, the subject is in trouble. Quale 05:50, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Not each true is plausible. It is not plausible, but the Earth moves around the Sun, not the Sun does.
- Delete. original research. or, in this case, 'research'.Hornplease 20:03, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
This method hepls to understand the nature of rhotacism and zetacism.
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.