- 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 keep. A lively debate, at the end of which consensus seems to be that the nomination tended towards being itself ...misguided. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Cognitive and linguistic theories of composition ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Orphaned essay from the stone age. Linguistic theory doens't even have an article, so this article is entirely meaningless. It's just a rambling essay with no focus. If there is a thing here, then WP:TNT. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The rationale given for deletion is curious. Physical theory does not have its own article (it is a redirect to Theoretical physics). Does it now follow that Physical theories modified by general relativity is entirely meaningless? That is a non sequitur, and likewise for the nominator's conclusion that the nominated article is meaningless. But even if the conclusion was valid, the article is not patent nonsense – far from it. Being orphaned or from the stone age are also not valid deletion rationales. Appeals to WP:TNT are even an implicit argument for keeping the article. In short, the nomination fails to present a valid argument for deletion, which is a reason for a speedy keep. -- Lambiam 23:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- @
Lambiam: Where are the sources? How about that? Is that a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- @ TenPoundHammer: It is a valid reason if the content of the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, or if thorough attempts to find reliable sources have failed. The mere absence of sources is not by itself a valid argument – or else almost every stub article should be deleted before it has a chance to be developed. -- Lambiam
- The sources are in the Works Cited section. They've been there all along. –
dlthewave
☎
14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- @ Lambiam: @ Dlthewave: And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's totally uncalled for. Everyone is a volunteer here, you don't need to talk to them like that. 198.58.168.40 ( talk) 08:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- The sources are in the Works Cited section. They've been there all along. –
dlthewave
☎
14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- @
Lambiam: Where are the sources? How about that? Is that a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @ TenPoundHammer: That comment was out of line. Now, I don't like the look of this article, but your behavior at AfD has been most toxic. Like I've suggested to you before, you ought to improve these articles yourself instead of running them down for deletion at the first sight of a cleanup tag. Or, as you so eloquently put it: "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The article is well sourced. As the nominator was given succinct response in one of their bad nominations, "TNT is not policy, the actual policy says it is better to have poor article than none." Comparison with other topic don't have article is also empty thought here. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Unimpressive soft-science theory not to my own taste but sourced and capable of improvement. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
- Keep - adequate sources in the article to demonstrate notability. Since I don't don't see how TNT is applicable here I see no reason for deletion. Rlendog ( talk) 03:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 keep. A lively debate, at the end of which consensus seems to be that the nomination tended towards being itself ...misguided. (non-admin closure) >SerialNumber 54129 ...speculates 15:06, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
- Cognitive and linguistic theories of composition ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Orphaned essay from the stone age. Linguistic theory doens't even have an article, so this article is entirely meaningless. It's just a rambling essay with no focus. If there is a thing here, then WP:TNT. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 20:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Baby miss fortune 06:25, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
- Speedy keep. The rationale given for deletion is curious. Physical theory does not have its own article (it is a redirect to Theoretical physics). Does it now follow that Physical theories modified by general relativity is entirely meaningless? That is a non sequitur, and likewise for the nominator's conclusion that the nominated article is meaningless. But even if the conclusion was valid, the article is not patent nonsense – far from it. Being orphaned or from the stone age are also not valid deletion rationales. Appeals to WP:TNT are even an implicit argument for keeping the article. In short, the nomination fails to present a valid argument for deletion, which is a reason for a speedy keep. -- Lambiam 23:02, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- @
Lambiam: Where are the sources? How about that? Is that a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- @ TenPoundHammer: It is a valid reason if the content of the article cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, or if thorough attempts to find reliable sources have failed. The mere absence of sources is not by itself a valid argument – or else almost every stub article should be deleted before it has a chance to be developed. -- Lambiam
- The sources are in the Works Cited section. They've been there all along. –
dlthewave
☎
14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- @ Lambiam: @ Dlthewave: And that means the article is now automatically FA right? No one ever needs to do anything to it again? It's notable, it's the best thing ever on this goddamn wiki? How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands? Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 21:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
- That's totally uncalled for. Everyone is a volunteer here, you don't need to talk to them like that. 198.58.168.40 ( talk) 08:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
- The sources are in the Works Cited section. They've been there all along. –
dlthewave
☎
14:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
- @
Lambiam: Where are the sources? How about that? Is that a valid argument? Ten Pound Hammer • (
What did I screw up now?)
23:56, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 10:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 04:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- @ TenPoundHammer: That comment was out of line. Now, I don't like the look of this article, but your behavior at AfD has been most toxic. Like I've suggested to you before, you ought to improve these articles yourself instead of running them down for deletion at the first sight of a cleanup tag. Or, as you so eloquently put it: "How about fixing it instead of sitting on your fucking hands?" - Indy beetle ( talk) 04:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep No valid reason given for deletion. The article is well sourced. As the nominator was given succinct response in one of their bad nominations, "TNT is not policy, the actual policy says it is better to have poor article than none." Comparison with other topic don't have article is also empty thought here. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
- Keep. Unimpressive soft-science theory not to my own taste but sourced and capable of improvement. Xxanthippe ( talk) 05:41, 18 January 2018 (UTC).
- Keep - adequate sources in the article to demonstrate notability. Since I don't don't see how TNT is applicable here I see no reason for deletion. Rlendog ( talk) 03:16, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
- 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.