Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Modern demographic transition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Seb26 (talk | contribs) at 06:20, 15 March 2008 (→Modern demographic transition: 3level header). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:20, 15 March 2008 by Seb26 (talk | contribs) (→Modern demographic transition: 3level header)
- 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, without prejudice to the creation of a new article with proper sourcing to substantiate notability and provide evidence that this is not original research. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Modern demographic transition
AfDs for this article:
- Modern demographic transition (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
Seems more like an essay than an article, also a lack of notability. - Milk's Favorite Cookie 23:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete or redirect to Demographic transition. Article reads like an essay and although there are several google books hits, they all seem to be referring to modern "demographic transition" rather than "Modern demographic transition" as a theory worthy of its own article. ascidian | talk-to-me 13:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 15:32, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- we should wait for a clarification from the original author, who seems to be a subject matter expert. (In my opinion, a talk-page message would have been more appropriate than an AfD.) I would give it several days to a week, since new users often don't realize how quick things move here. Tlogmer ( talk / contributions ) 23:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Very weak keep if it is in fact a theory that produced some academic work and debate, it merits its own article, as many articles on failed theories do. The lack of sources makes it hard to keep, but there's room for improvement. Gorgonzola (talk) 13:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - No sourcing, no verifiability, no wikification, smacks of original research. If there is such a notable theory, this is not the article to tell us so. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:37, 13 March 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.