Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Structure and Counterstructure: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12) |
|||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 4 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]]===
:{{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 9 ⟶ 16:
*'''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>
| |||