Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Structure and Counterstructure: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Line 9:
*'''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)
| |||