Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-symbolic communication
- 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 unsourced, no WP:RS provided Gnangarra 15:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Post-symbolic_communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - (View log)
New word, original research, synthesis of ideas in a way that is dubious, vanity page. Don't attack me because this is my first edit with this username. I had one but lost my password. This isn't a vote or poll, arguements only.YVNP 20:05, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep I think the author could find sources to refer to, but if he/she doesn't, then this needs to be postsymbolically forgotten. BTW, your old password was <removed content>. Mandsford 23:47, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 13:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 15:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Cleanup - The largest proponent of this seems to be Jaron Lanier who, according to his cv (http://www.meetthemediaguru.org/cvJaron.doc), seems to be a fairly prolific article writer, who invokes plenty of articles about his ideas. I think that with some clean up and figuring out which articles about his work are WP:RS, this could be a decent article. Burzmali 20:06, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment ~ Infrangible 03:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Saying someone will find sources eventually doesn't count. When someone does then the article will be recreated. Jaron Lanier wrote a few articles a year ago but that just means he supports it. A big problem is that the article is a synthesis of lanier's idea and unrelated ideas Lanier was probably not aware of and does not prove they are related outside of a few similarities(plus examples are not notability as any thing can be an example of anything). The biggest problem is that no sources or proof of notabiltiy have shown up have shown up for a year and a half. And even with clean up it will still be merged with the Jaron article. It fails WP:OR (specifically the synthesis rule.) and WP:ATT. YVNP 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Dude, everything I say counts. Mandsford 00:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentBut still thats to long to go without a single source for notability, proof the examples are actually examples outside the authors own opinion, or even proof that Jaron Lanier's doesn't belong on some page about non symbolic communication ideas in general(espicially virtual reality).YVNP 11:58, 13 July 2007 (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.