Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Structure and Counterstructure: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:10, 24 September 2007

Latest revision as of 01:57, 12 February 2023

(7 intermediate revisions by 6 users not shown)

Line 1:

<div class="boilerplate metadata afd vfd xfd-closed" style="background-color: #F3F9FF; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">

:''The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page. ''

<!--Template:Afd top

Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links in order to create a new discussion page using the name format of [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PAGENAME (2nd nomination)]]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. -->

The result was '''delete'''. --[[User:Coredesat|Core]][[User talk:Coredesat|<span style="color:#457541;">desat</span>]] 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

===[[Theory of Structure and Counterstructure]]===

{{REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD|S}}

:{{la|Theory of Structure and Counterstructure}} – <includeonly>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Structure and Counterstructure|View AfD]])</includeonly><noinclude>([[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2007 September 24#{{anchorencode:Theory of Structure and Counterstructure}}|View log]])</noinclude>

Line 7 ⟶ 14:

I am too new to Wikipedia to understand its rules - so my apologies if my intervening here is inappropriate, and my application of 'Be Bold' too .....bold. My outline of the theory of structure and counterstructure seems to pose questions. I can only say, hoping it clarifies, and helps, that this theory has already been published in reputable scholarly volumes, and so does not attempt to use Wikipedia to publish original research. That I can do elsewhere - well, I have... Yes, it's my own invention - insofar as any humanistic idea can be entirely new... I think it explains itself clearly, and is interesting, and important to a number of philosophical problems, so should be on Wikipedia. I'm not sure that it isn't possible to over-emphasize the 'don't write about your own ideas' - if applied ovevr-reductively, this could too easily be got round by networking and at the same time, lead to a failure to keep up- to- date. Most of all, I'd really like to see any intellectual contagion that might arise from putting this theory on to the Wikipedia cognitive multiverse, since it's so vast and diverse. Wikipedia is such an essential example of memetics at work (I am a member of the Societe francaise de memetique). Thanks for your attention! [[User:DrAngelaRyan|DrAngelaRyan]] 23.00, 24 September 2007 <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|signed but undated]] comment was added at 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)</small><!--Template:Undated--> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

*'''delete''' [[wp:coi]] [[wp:n]] The issue is not really that it is that it is published, it is that it is notable. in the case of literary theory, we need solid secondary sources like dictionary of literary theory, or notable author citing, etc. --[[User:Buridan|Buridan]] 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''' This looks like a paper that got an A minus last spring. This formula, developed by Angela Ryan, "owes obvious debts to Hume and Hegel". Oh, obviously. [[User:Mandsford|Mandsford]] 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

::The Hegel part does seem obvious enough. But not all academic theories merit an article until other people also write about them. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. [[WP:COI]] isn't in itself grounds for deletion. However, the so far minimal presence on the WWW and, more importantly, zero presence in Google Books and Google Scholar, suggest it falls way below the threshold of notability for academic ideas. Even if it's not original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher or venue for spreading memes. [[User:Gordonofcartoon|Gordonofcartoon]] 02:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>