Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Kierkegaards Theorum

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 of the debate was delete. BD2412 T 16:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Two Kierkegaards Theorum

probable hoax Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:53, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Is this article at all related to Kierkegaard? ~MDD4696 01:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Only by name. I think Dr. J.J. Robinson, Dr. Joel A. Unger, and Two Kierkegaards Theorum were all created as a hoax. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete because the "Two Kierkegaards Theorum" has zero google hits. Ruby 01:49, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Theory is such a massive falacy that no one would come up with it --LeftyG 02:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Ruby --NaconKantari e|t||c|m 03:19, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Rebelguys2 04:07, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Bollocks. --Lockley 05:22, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Grandmasterka 05:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:BALLS. Puhlease. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:04, 25 January 2006 (UTC) Dr. J.J. Robinson and Dr. Joel A. Unger should be deleted too, of course. Dbtfz (talk - contribs) 06:06, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete appears to be nonsense.Blnguyen 06:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete {{hoax}} article, verging on WP:BALLS.  (aeropagitica)  07:29, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, although replace 'probable' with 'definite'. Ncsaint 09:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as hoax. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-01-25 10:54Z
• Delete per nom, it doesn't have an ounce of truth and can't be verified.--Adam ^(talk) 13:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, this "theorum" doesn't seem to be well known.
• Delete as unverifiable. —This user has left wikipedia 16:18 2006-01-25
• Delete per Achilles--likely hoax because both EBSCO and FirstSearch return nothing on either of the two supposed scholars. (There are plenty of J. Robinsons, but these all tend to work in the medical arena for some reason). It should be noted that the databases are only searchable back to the early nineties, but it would be reasonable if the theory is "still debated" that someone would mentioned the author's names somewhere in an article.--eleuthero 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - Am I the only one who noticed the misspelling of "theorem" (which might explain the lack of Google hits)? Anyway, a Google search for "Two Kierkegaards" reveals one cite: Philosophy Today volume 16 (Winter 1972), pages 113-122. So it's not completely unheard of, although it certainly seems nonnotable enough to be deleted. I'm abstaining from the vote, though. Powers 19:09, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I tend to think this is a fairly well crafted hoax, as they seem to have chosen this phrase specifically in such a way that some superficially plausible Google results would turn up. The article in Philosophy Today doesn't seem to be related to the contents claimed here, and it fits neither the bibliographical information nor the timeline. Lukas ^(T.|@) 22:52, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Latinus 20:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Elaborate hoax. Hopefully this user will settle down and do something useful now. Herostratus 22:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. Yorick, Jester of Elsinore 23:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

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.