Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Self-explaining

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. Courcelles 01:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Self-explaining

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

This article has no references and seems to be original research, or possibly an incomprehensible hoax. It seems to fail WP:GNG. - Mr X 02:24, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Beyond a vague definition, it's not clear what a page on self-explaining would be about. "Self-explaining" shows hits on Google, but the trouble is that it is an adjective that is used in a lot of different ways. In the Netherlands some talk of self-explaining roads, educators talk of self-explaining as a meta-cognitive strategy for learning. The artificial reasoner part of the definition might be confusing self-explaining with self-describing, a term used with data formats like HDF5 to indicate that headers describe the data contents. There seems to be no dominant uses of the term that references could be gathered for, making the article unverifiable. Adjectives like Large have their own disambiguation page. If suitable links could be found, perhaps it would be best to turn this into a disambiguation page for some known uses of the term? Mark viking (talk) 04:21, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, very short stub that has trouble explaining what it's all about. No references or sources whatsoever. JIP | Talk 07:16, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, unsourced, unfocused. Killer Chihuahua 11:07, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Original research, no reliable sources verifying the information. -- LuK3 (Talk) 21:12, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per all above.--Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:35, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:29, 12 December 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.