Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonipsism

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:06, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nonipsism

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Non-notable, clearly created by the author to promote his own coined term and work. Remsense ‥ 论 23:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Remsense ‥ 论 23:45, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I concur with the nominator, this article exists solely to advertise the essay that it discusses, as made clear by the fact that the essay is the only reference. The only hits I got were forum posts. MediaKyle (talk) 00:01, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does not meet WP:GNG and is not a notable subject. The fact that only one author is cited does cause concern that it may be self-promotion. Aneirinn (talk) 00:12, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's a copy of the text in the images, uploaded to Commons, sourced to a 2025-03-13 upload of the same thing to the Internet Archive. This is an abuse of Wikimedia Commons, Wikipedia, and the Internet Archive to self-publish a paper on an original hypothesis. It isn't even a researched and properly peer reviewed paper. Otherwise it would have addressed prior work in the field. This is textbook violation of the no original research policy. Delete. Uncle G (talk) 00:57, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Uncle G. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:31, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In addition to the points raised above, I'd venture that this is a violation of WP:PATENT. After the lead, which reads like a philosophy article, it immediately devolves into various forms of the word "appear" repeated 77 times. I'd almost be willing to label it trolling. Anerdw (talk) 02:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- You would be amazed at how much real philosophy, by respected philosophers, that standard excludes; especially when it is English mixed with German and Latin. But yes, this is a poor imitation. An expert would have started with Kant. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 09:23, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it appears to be WP:OR and WP:NEO. Bearian (talk) 09:00, 18 March 2025 (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.