Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logical necessity of inconsistency
- 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. Coredesat 04:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Logical necessity of inconsistency (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Article written by User:CarlHewitt on some minor theorems on his Direct Logic, which have not been published in any peer-reviewed journal. —Ruud 16:01, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
KeepDelete The content of the article is somewhat beyond my expertise comfort level, but I get about 400 ghits, many of which are seemingly independent and unrelated to Wikipedia. To me, it seems to have sufficient notability, and it's certainly a legitimate topic, even if not (yet?) found in peer-reviewed journals. Tim Ross·talk 18:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- You should not have relied on a simple Google search and certainly not on a shallow inspection of them: almost none of them have not been written by Hewitt. Furthermore note that WP:OR is non-negotiable. —Ruud 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I didn't phrase my thoughts very clearly, Ruud. Yes, of course WP:OR is non-negotiable. I did not realize that you were making a WP:OR argument, since the article has something like 19 references. I had supposed that they showed publication and comments. As far as I am aware, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not a Wikipedia requirement. My recommendation was based on the seeming notability of the article's topic, for which a Google search is not inappropriate. Perhaps you can expand a little on your original argument. Tim Ross·talk 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only a single reference (Carl Hewitt (2007b) "The Logical Necessity of Inconsistency") supports the bulk of the article, a presentation given at a seminar and has therefore not been reviewed thoroughly enough to be considered published research. The Google query you have ran only returns results from Wikipedia and it's mirrors, or work published on the Internet by Hewitt himself. This does not establish that there exist independent sources. (Finaly it may be important to note that the title of the article is somewhat misleading; is mainly discusses two theorems on Hewitt's Direct Logic, not the "logical necessity of inconsistency" in general.) —Ruud 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm convinced. Delete it is. Tim Ross·talk 11:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Only a single reference (Carl Hewitt (2007b) "The Logical Necessity of Inconsistency") supports the bulk of the article, a presentation given at a seminar and has therefore not been reviewed thoroughly enough to be considered published research. The Google query you have ran only returns results from Wikipedia and it's mirrors, or work published on the Internet by Hewitt himself. This does not establish that there exist independent sources. (Finaly it may be important to note that the title of the article is somewhat misleading; is mainly discusses two theorems on Hewitt's Direct Logic, not the "logical necessity of inconsistency" in general.) —Ruud 23:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess I didn't phrase my thoughts very clearly, Ruud. Yes, of course WP:OR is non-negotiable. I did not realize that you were making a WP:OR argument, since the article has something like 19 references. I had supposed that they showed publication and comments. As far as I am aware, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is not a Wikipedia requirement. My recommendation was based on the seeming notability of the article's topic, for which a Google search is not inappropriate. Perhaps you can expand a little on your original argument. Tim Ross·talk 21:59, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You should not have relied on a simple Google search and certainly not on a shallow inspection of them: almost none of them have not been written by Hewitt. Furthermore note that WP:OR is non-negotiable. —Ruud 19:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. From the style and subject of the article, I am convinced that it is written by Carl Hewitt. The Arbitration Committee ruled that he is not to write articles in his research area, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Carl Hewitt#Remedies. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 01:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for lack of evidence of being a notable theory. Once you omit Wikipedia and Hewitt's blog from the google hits, all that're left are a list of his works, and notifications of a talk by Hewitt on the topic. Someguy1221 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete this installment in the continuing Carl Hewitt self-glorification saga. --Lambiam 06:46, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Properly, we should consider the topic rather than the content. On the other hand, considering that it is an extended abstract of a recent paper, we can delete simply because WP doesn't welcome such abstracts. So the recreation of a better survey at some point in the future should be noted in this debate, as a possibility. Still, this article is premature and not proper encyclopedic material. Despite the impressive reference section, it is essentially orginal research supported only by what may be reasonably expected to be writing falling under WP:AUTO, or close to. Since the ArbCom has a broad ruling in place against Hewitt's autobiographical writing, this article should be cleared off the site. (NB I prefer PROD to do this; contestation of the PROD by classic Hewitt-like IP number editors and single-use throwaway accounts can then be treated as mere gaming of the ArbCom ruling and ignored. The advantage is that if a PROD like this was genuinely contested or queried after deletion, the article can be brought back in two seconds by an admin.) Charles Matthews 14:14, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete without prejudice against re-creation if notability can be shown and the article can be written properly. The mentions of Gödel seem anecdotal, and the theory of direct logic lacks evaluations or even comments on it by reliable sources. Carl Hewitt is still under editing restrictions due to past self-promotion, so there is no incentive at all for us to bend the rules in favor of this article's existence. EdJohnston 17:41, 2 December 2007 (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.