Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natsecurology

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. Rlendog (talk) 18:19, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Natsecurology

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

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

Natsecurology has highly dubious notability (0 Google hits, 0 JSTOR hits, 0 Google Scholar hits). Author of the article appears to be the same author of the idea it discusses.

Re NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM, I don't see any notable information here that isn't already covered in the national security article. The article appears to be a coatrack for the author's own theories. Psychonaut (talk) 14:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not only do I endorse the deletion of Natsecurology, but I am adding NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM to this nomination, as it suffers the same issues—particularly that the author of the article is the author of the idea, and Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. —C.Fred (talk) 14:15, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Basically an OR essay. I saw the NATIONAL SECURITY PARADIGM article earlier too, and would also support it's deletion for the same reasons. Basalisk ^{inspect damage}⁄_berate 14:27, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. Both of these articles are structured as though they were dictionary definitions, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:37, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Both WP:OR Mkdw ^talk 21:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both as violating WP:OR, lacking WP:GNG and WP:RS and not suitable WP:NOT#DICTIONARY since they are verbose definitions and not encyclopedic articles. DocTree (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both. agree with above and as per WP:ORand WP:NOT#DICTIONARY --Ðℬig XЯaɣ 20:22, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Badly written OR without any redeeming glimmer. FeatherPluma (talk) 03:08, 4 June 2012 (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.