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. The term might actually point to several different contexts, but this article isn't considered helpful. Tikiwont (talk) 08:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The theory of inevitability[edit]

The theory of inevitability (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Pretty obviously made up (WP:MADEUP) and verging on WP:CB. Non-notable, unencyclopedic. ukexpat (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete definite hoax. Who can travel back in time?! BoL (Talk) 01:03, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, nonsense. WillOakland (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, WP:OR/nonsense. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 03:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete hoaxy Fattyjwoods ^{(Push my button)} 04:27, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete some of this article my be a faint reflection of serious speculation, but the material here is not worth building on.DGG (talk) 05:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete there is a real theory called the theory of inevitability but it was a philosophical theory published in the late 1990s. I've asked the user to provide proof this isn't made up, which they have not done. Delete as probable hoax. Redfarmer (talk) 08:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• MOTION TO SPEEDY DELETE obviously original researchNewAtThis (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Original research is not a valid reason for speedy deletion -- Whpq (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - don't rise to NewAtThis's bait. That user has been on a spree of malicious and retaliatory AfD nominations and comments over the past day or so. Already been reported.  – ukexpat (talk) 14:48, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Inevitably delete. Mere speculation, unsourced. Doesn't qualify as OR, since it is not research at all. --Blanchardb-^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}-timed 21:11, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to predestination. Not a new idea at all. Mandsford (talk) 02:31, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Per WP:OR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2008 (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.