Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Structuration Theory
- 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 Redirect to Structuration. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:16Z
This is either nonsense or legitimate postmodernism, I can never distinguish between the two. If the latter, it appears to be covering much the same ground as structuration, with an added element of original research. Opabinia regalis 06:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to structuration. Term itself is widely used e.g. 62,300 hits on google scholar [1]. This is an OR essay fragment though. (btw, Giddens is not a postmodernist and if anyone's interested, his article really needs some help (I've made a start on a particularly problematic section - but its years since I've read him) Bwithh 07:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect per Bwithh and call in a language pathologist; frankly, I'm not sure structuration is much better, but it at least has references. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:53, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect possibly ask the creator to merge. It is just sociology, nothing postmodern about it. --Buridan 03:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. This is about as intelligible as most of the spam I get in my inbox each day. Maddy626 09:48, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, appears to be an essay fragment and probably original research.--Nydas(Talk) 14:36, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect, don't see much there worthy of a merge. SkierRMH 23:33, 23 December 2006 (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.