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 redirect to Emad Abdullah Ayasrah. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:27, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Theory of reverse roles

[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested prod. Article about a claimed "political theory" that has no secondary sources (and none that I can find), is all sourced to the same individual (Emad Abdullah Ayasrah) who claims to have "founded" (an individual whom I'm not even sure passes notability himself). The editor's only edits was creating this article, the article about the individual (Emad Abdullah Ayasrah), and the one about his father (Abdullah Ayasrah) (none of which seem to pass notability, mind you). I'm very suspicious about a COI, but have no proof. Yazan (talk) 14:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Yazan (talk) 14:55, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it is notable, I would like to note that any new theory starts with one single person who will try to publish it and open a debate about it waiting for general approval or consensus about it. If it found approval from the scholars of that field of matter it will be come more popular theory. It is not a drawback from the founder of the articles that there are not so much sources yet. If he claimed someone's else theory to be his theory and so you found sources of that theory under someone's else name then maybe it should be deleted.--94.249.65.141 (talk) 15:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC

It is a new theory so there supposed to be a little sources except articles published from the founder. And as it notable it deserved to be in wikipedia as a stub and will be upgraded as long as it mentioned time by time in other sources.

That is irrelevant. Wikipedia acknowledges notability, it doesn't confer it. There is no "deserve" involved here. If it's a new theory and all the sources are the developer of that theory, it has absolutely no place on Wikipedia.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lots of things fall under WP:NOT here. Whether or not the theory is justifiable or not is irrelevant. The issue is if the theory is notable and it is not. It may be the most brilliant research ever, but Wikipedia is not a clearinghouse for people to get their theories seen by a wider audience.CoffeeCrumbs (talk) 15:46, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge --92.253.82.152 (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— Duplicate !vote: 92.253.82.152 (talk • contribs) has already cast a !vote above.

Delete, fails the notability guidelines for neologisms. Hairhorn (talk) 01:39, 23 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep good sources. and notable topic --46.185.170.27 (talk) 12:05, 26 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

— 46.185.170.27 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

merge to the founder page until more sources can be found --DaniTarty (talk) 21:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this as a horrible example of WP:OR. Also, there appears to be significant sock involvement in this discussion. Qworty (talk) 23:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 05:24, 29 October 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.