Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Law of Aggression

: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. KTC (talk) 01:15, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

=[[Law of Aggression]]=

:{{la|Law of Aggression}} – (View AfDView log{{int:dot-separator}} [https://tools.wmflabs.org/jackbot/snottywong/cgi-bin/votecounter.cgi?page=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Law_of_Aggression Stats])

:({{Find sources AFD|Law of Aggression}})

Original research/original synthesis. Essay sourced to three dictionary definitions ("scientific method", "philosophy", and "metaphysics", respectively). Looking around on Scholar etc I can find some people defining their own "law of aggression", but none of them seem very notable. Or is the one discussed here. Kolbasz (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:07, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

{{resize|96%|Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.}}

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (confer) @ 14:54, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Delete per nom. Dictionary definitions cannot give notability - otherwise we'd have an article for every word in the OED. Looks like OR or essay. Peridon (talk) 17:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete does not appear verifiable. Piboy51 (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Delete large amount of material that is not cohesive and fails to be verifiable. There is an assertion that this is a "scientific law" but doesn't appear to be based on repeatable experiments and I can't see anything published anywhere reputable along these lines. The dictionary references don't relate to the subject of this article. This article seems to have been mainly put together by one editor who relys on a single source to substantiate their claims- a book by a non-notable author. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2015 (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.