Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interaction without interaction

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. Moving into WP:SNOW territory! Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction without interaction

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

I'm honestly struggling to figure out what the point of this page is. It seems, on the surface, to be a retelling of Interaction-free measurement, but then it goes off the rails a bit. The references have nothing to do with the subject, but rather seem to be used as vague verification for the theories proposed (and with the exception of the unpublished paper, none of them mention "interaction without interaction"). It's a bit more scientific than pure FRINGE, but it's definitely not a solid enough theory to be included on Wikipedia. Primefac (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Waleswatcher (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until sufficient—and sufficiently—relevant wp:secondary sources support—or at least mention—it. - DVdm (talk) 17:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT#OR - Seems to be one person posting there proposed theory on Wikipedia. Fountains of Bryn Mawr (talk) 17:29, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially tagged for G2, but it was denied by an admin. I don't see how it contributes as an article to Wikipedia. Also as per Fountains of Bryn Mawr. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 17:39, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Optakeover, G2 is for test pages. This is a full article, even if the source is questionable. I debated tagging it A11 (made up by creator) but it's not a completely bonkers page. Primefac (talk) 18:09, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I fully understand that. That's why my vote here is not a speedy delete. Optakeover^(U)(T)(C) 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, I was just mentioning the differences in case you were wondering why the G2 was removed. Primefac (talk) 18:16, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought about speedying this. Another author publicising his own pet theory, WP:NOT#OR indeed Jimfbleak - talk to me? 18:12, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could not find any discussion of "interaction without interaction" on google, google scholar, google books, etc. I will change my vote if other editors can show me that this topic is discussed in reliable sources, but until then, I think deletion is the way to go. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 20:32, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inadequate sources. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 25 May 2016 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Logically incoherent titles ("X without X") can only possibly be accepted if there is overwhelming evidence that the logical incoherency is in widespread use (like "Cheap at half the price"). Imaginatorium (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR - the editor seems to have created the article about his own work in science which is not published and every link is to his own data. DeVerm (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#OR - not notable. Google Scholar search gives 1 hit, but has not any citations. No other sources like magazine articles independent on the author (which has created the theory) could be found. Kryomaxim(talk)

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.