Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition

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. RL0919 (talk) 17:53, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Stott's Theorem of The Pictorial Condition

[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)

Doesn't meet the general notability guideline.-- Pontificalibus 10:28, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Now moved:

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) --CiaPan (talk) 14:25, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My WP:BEFORE turned up nothing. FOARP (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:41, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notability fail on all fronts. No sources at all found.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:35, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obvious self-promotion, especially when viewed with Special:permalink/874770199#Stott's Theorem of the Pictorial Condition at the Teahouse. --CiaPan (talk) 14:22, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing with a Google search for either title. Fails WP:GNG. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A theoretical term (see WP:NEOLOGISM) that spectacularly fails to meet our Notability guidelines, put onto a Wikipedia page as WP:OR by a WP:SPA in order to (self-?)promote it, based upon nothing other than one article in a 'Journal of Speculative Arts'. Could be a clue there. Should be speedily deleted as WP:VANISPAM and WP:BOLLOCKS or, to be kind to it, regarded as WP:TOOSOON as it's clearly not yet taken the world by storm, nor even a faint breeze. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think the article author and chief promoter could use an indef block, as the only reason he is here is to promote this article and in ignore policy. See the article talk and the deletion talk.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:46, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: I've now had a little chat with him on his Talk page. I think the realisation has now sunk in that we aren't here to help promote theories and concepts which have not yet become established as notable topics. I doubt there will be further editing on this topic for a while. Nick Moyes (talk) 22:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a non-notable theory. It has not received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the person who created the theory. The intent seems promotional, which is contrary to Wikipedia's purposes. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 03:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the troll level of objections I suggest the conflict of interest is from the other way round. The term 'transcendental imaging' is entirely valid i.e. a square can represent a trapezoid (FACT). That trapezoid ordinarily cannot be accessed cognition-wise (FACT) because it looks like a square and not a trapezoid (FACT.) That aspect of imaging beyond ordinary cognitive access is 'transcendental imaging.' I made every effort to take that out of the equation by my intial page called 'The Pictorial Condition' but it was my theory in the essay so I called it 'Stott's Theorem of' as builds on the first rule of perspective which is that shape represents form. It's not new knowledge but a further description of what that knowledge is as I describe in the article now on PHILPAPERS. it's an established site!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I had to change it to the kown title because there were objections to the title because nobody had heard of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads (talk • contribs) 10:43, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If nobody has heard of it, it is obvious WP:OR and not WP-notable.

Which ends the argument. --CiaPan (talk) 13:09, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I find the discussion of Transcendental Imaging to be incomprehensible. It is syntactically valid English, but I can't extract a scholarly semantic meaning from it. That is another reason to:
Delete Robert McClenon (talk) 19:20, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If the above commentator has only half a brain that's his problem, not a problem with 'transcendental imaging'. Can the said person work out 1+1=2? Get a phtograph with some objects on it, cut round them with some scissors and then put the pieces on the table in front of you and you might comprehend that 2D shapes represent architectonic form. OK???????? ONCE YOU HAVE THAT KNOWLEDGE have you the brain to then apply that knowledge to all 2D shapes???????????????? i.e visual chaos, patterns, newsprint, computer game stills, page layouts etc. It's transcendental because it's ordinarily to hard to see it because a square looks like a square, see???????????? The statement is a qualification of the matrix of that, in clear and simple language to anybody with a brain. OK???????????????? If you're going to put comments here, how about comments with some intelligence to them, rather than silly political empty headed drivel.

perspective has been around for 600 years, this aspect has been validated by academia. Take some time to look at the links etc. with respect.

CiaPan, transcendental imaging is the page name and it's been no.1 on google, bing and yahoo for over five years, therefore not original and notable.

With regard to Nick Moyes comments, I never thought Wikepdia was to promote unestablished theories but to log knowledge, as has been the case with the very reasonable KNOWLEDGE and BASIC KNOWLEDGE AT THAT, for example the impossible trident solution, the artificial imagination link, as an established work of art and the 'transcendental imaging' page which is ENTIRELY FACT-BASED and SIMPLE FACT at that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan Van Carloads (talk • contribs) 11:34, 25 December 2018 (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.