Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The bubble theory
- 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. ✗plicit 11:12, 15 July 2024 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- The bubble theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This appears to be a novel theory that has seen close to zero uptake in the field so far. I can only find a single reference to the concept and/or paper [1], and that is a passing mention in an unreviewed preprint. This is not at all surprising because the paper was only published a month ago. Someone is trying to use WP as a publicizing platform here. There is as yet no notability basis for this topic. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 09:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- In the second paper from 2019 there is a whole section titled Bubble Theory. Jedzwarzywa (talk) 10:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Yes... the second paper from the same author... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:43, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Delete This is an hypothesis by one author and it has not gained any consensus by the scientific community. The two papers are primary sources and should not be used alone. Graham Beards (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete One guy's idea with no discernible influence (in other words, not even noteworthy as an idea people have taken the trouble to explicitly reject). Not what Wikipedia is for. XOR'easter (talk) 17:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
- Delete Work by a single author. Independent of whether the 2024 work is going to end up as notable, to date there is no evidence that it is. The second 2019 paper has been cited 9 times and is already in Living systems and Life, perhaps others. Move anything useful to one of those. Ldm1954 (talk) 14:09, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was added to Life, and then part of it was moved over to Living systems during a cleanup attempt. It doesn't belong in any of those places, for the same fundamental reasons as why this article shouldn't exist. XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- I deliberately used anything useful to not make a judgement here about the validity of the work. I see that you have removed the 2nd paper from those pages -- it was there when I voted. I must abstain on what useful aspects go into other pages as it is well into my incompetence. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:05, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- It was added to Life, and then part of it was moved over to Living systems during a cleanup attempt. It doesn't belong in any of those places, for the same fundamental reasons as why this article shouldn't exist. XOR'easter (talk) 15:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- Well, Special:Contributions/Jedzwarzywa is pretty illuminating. Looks like the bubble theory of scant uptake has been busily inserted wherever it would go by this editor. I have just removed an entirely overblown presentation of it from Individual. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:12, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
- 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.