Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Knowledge instinct (2nd nomination)
- 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. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 03:36, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Knowledge instinct[edit]
- Knowledge instinct (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
A one-man theory with, apparently, very little independent support. It's basically Perlovsky's term for something that most other people either don't discuss or use another name for, as far as I can tell. The onyl sources for the definition are papers by Perlovsky, the other sources are part of a discourse on how Perlovsky came to the idea, and are not actually supportive of the term itself. The author of the article has brought this here from elsewhere; I think it may well have a place in a "Perlovskypedia" but there is not enough evidence of usage beyond the coiner of the term, to support an entry in Wikipedia. The previous debate was closed speedily because of lack of copyright permission; a previous different version was deleted as copyright from somewhere else. Guy (Help!) 13:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as synthesis, because the second paragraph looks to be synthesised into the article, as unsourced because the third paragraph has no sources and as a dictionary definition because that's all your left with once those two are removed. Hiding T 13:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, little or no coverage or sourcing outside Perlovsky's several papers. Stifle (talk) 14:35, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I also looked around and did not find substantial coverage of the term outside of Perlovsky's own papers. Does not pass WP:N, at least for now. Nsk92 (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:SYNTH. Also, shaky on the RS and no independent coverage found. -- Logical Premise Ergo? 15:41, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above, a non-notable neologism describing an extremely vague theory. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
NO PROBLEM this article has been made part of Perlovsky bio page so it can now be deleted, thank you. Romanilin (talk) 15:24, 2 October 2008 (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.