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.
Another neologism by two sockpuppets (ChemTerm and Androox) of banned User:Tobias Conradi(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs). No citations are likely, because this is entirely made up of whole cloth.
DeleteWP:CSD#G5 — in accord with previous decisions, such as:
Delete per
WP:NEO and
WP:OR. I'm sure you can get lots of ghits about this phrase, but so what? This is essentially original research, which in 20 years we have never published.
Bearian (
talk)
23:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per Bearian; looking at the mentioned ghits a bit more in depth, "territorial entity" is used to explicate another entity such as a political, legal entity or administrative entity. Most of the references to this phrase are references to such entities that have territory – in contrast to those that don't. For example an international organization is a non-territorial entity of international law (so a legal entity) – if one wanted to contrast such a legal entity with all those that have territory, he/she might say "territorial entity", but this only has meaning in a very narrow context, and "territorial entity" otherwise has no independent substance; that would still be talking about legal entities.
— Alalch Emis (
talk)
17:43, 9 February 2021 (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.
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.
Another neologism by two sockpuppets (ChemTerm and Androox) of banned User:Tobias Conradi(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs). No citations are likely, because this is entirely made up of whole cloth.
DeleteWP:CSD#G5 — in accord with previous decisions, such as:
Delete per
WP:NEO and
WP:OR. I'm sure you can get lots of ghits about this phrase, but so what? This is essentially original research, which in 20 years we have never published.
Bearian (
talk)
23:01, 3 February 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per Bearian; looking at the mentioned ghits a bit more in depth, "territorial entity" is used to explicate another entity such as a political, legal entity or administrative entity. Most of the references to this phrase are references to such entities that have territory – in contrast to those that don't. For example an international organization is a non-territorial entity of international law (so a legal entity) – if one wanted to contrast such a legal entity with all those that have territory, he/she might say "territorial entity", but this only has meaning in a very narrow context, and "territorial entity" otherwise has no independent substance; that would still be talking about legal entities.
— Alalch Emis (
talk)
17:43, 9 February 2021 (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.