Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Short Discharge Time
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. MBisanz talk 16:39, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Short Discharge Time (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Delete as a violation of WP:NOR as primary source provided is by the author and user. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I don't think this is original research, as the article refers to and is based on a primary source. The main problem with the article is that "Short Discharge time" doesn't seem to be a notable topic, in that there are no sources I could find that are independent of the primary source. There are no secondary sources that I could find. Also, it appears that the author of the article may also the author of the primary source, which is a conflict of interest; see WP:COI for details. Mark viking (talk) 20:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- By definition that constitutes original research 8) but it is definitely a coi too. Hell In A Bucket (talk)
- Delete per WP:OR --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as original research. As I understand it, the creator is not a recognized expert on the topic and the only source is a self-published work written by the creator. If the creator were an expert, it would not be OR (though there would be COI issues which should not be cause for deletion). Jojalozzo 05:12, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete - pure OR, per nom. ukexpat (talk) 15:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - OR PianoDan (talk) 03:32, 11 December 2012 (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.