Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Structure and Counterstructure: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
m Dating comment by DrAngelaRyan - "→Theory of Structure and Counterstructure: " |
|||
Line 7:
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)
| |||