Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Introduced error

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. One two three... 20:42, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Introduced error

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

Original research, based on a single paper by the page author. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:17, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does anyone else think this might be a hoax? The wikilinks to project management and organizational hierarchy are strange and the entire article is - at least to me - practically incomprehensible. Patent nonsense, or is that a bit strong? --Northernhenge (talk) 20:52, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that the comprehensibility is a bit lacking, but I don't think it's a hoax. I think it's just a guy using Wikipedia to push his original research. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:13, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally non-notable neologism. The article is indeed quite incomprehensible. Also no significant ghits on "Petry Dish Method" or "Carney Method". --Lambiam 23:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 13:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't understand the comprehensibility arguments. I understand the article and have learned something useful by reviewing it. It is definitely not patent nonsense. Furthermore, poor quality is not a valid justification for deletion. There are problems with the refs (I have added a tag). Notability is not clearly established but perhaps that will be addressed when the refs are fixed. Article is just over a month old and deserves more time to develop. --Kvng (talk) 12:06, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A few of us have already looked for references. Good luck finding any; this is strictly original research from a non-notable technical writer. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:26, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NEO Stuartyeates (talk) 05:57, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Kvng in that the article is comprehensible, but I am not convinced that the concept is notable. Heck, I've used this technique myself. It involves the deliberate introduction of fabricated information presented to subject matter experts who are responsible for reviewing documentation for publication. They get all huffy about how bad it is and then point out all the mistakes and provide corrections. Voila! You now have a proofed document to publish. -- Whpq (talk) 14:27, 15 November 2011 (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.