Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meta-semantics

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 21:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Meta-semantics

Original research; no, that's not quite right: original thought, and exceedingly deep thought at that. Or anyway exceedingly deep thought by high-school standards. An essay. Although the string "meta-semantics" is to be found in Google, there's no reason there to think that any real philosopher (as opposed to blogger who may have had one toke or two) uses it in this way. And no references are given. -- Hoary 04:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Delete duuuuude. What does meaning... mean? What does deleting mean? What do words mean? This is deep stuff. Opabinia regalis 05:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Word. JIP | Talk 05:51, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Meta-delete per above. MER-C 06:14, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR. --Hyperbole 07:19, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, this is lame. --Terence Ong _{(T | C)} 09:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unverifiable crankery. There's an important issue here, but it's already covered in Meaning (linguistics). Sam Clark 10:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete However, the "important issue" is not covered in Meaning (linguistics). So called "meta-semantics" appears to have more to do with the breakdown of communication than it does actual meaning of linguistics. Nevertheless, one must have verifiable sources, of which this has none. 66.41.167.132 15:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • In this edit, a different IP changed "Delete" to "Revise". Maybe the same person, but a different IP. (Incidentally, Mr/Ms IP, while you are most welcome to comment here, unless you log in your "vote" won't count.) -- Hoary 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC) revised 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
    • Since when do votes by anonymous IPs not count in English Wikipedia AfD discussions? Of course votes by puppets and ballot stuffers don't count, but there's no reason to automatically disqualify all votes by anonymous IPs. On the Finnish Wikipedia, though, there is a rule that votes by anonymous IPs don't count in deletion discussions. JIP | Talk 09:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm surprised to read Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted....; this is not what I remembered, which is that if it came to a vote, their votes wouldn't be counted. -- Hoary 14:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep "Metasemantics" are discussed by Robert J. Stainton in the Broadview Press in an artilce titled "Philosophical perspectives on language." Peterborough, Ont. (1996).Criptopher 14:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Uh huh. What's the relationship between his discussion and the stuff that's in the article as it exists now? If the relationship is only tenuous, would you be prepared to do the necessary radical rewriting job? -- Hoary 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
    • One of those huh? Stainton equates metasemantics with social semantics, as does this article. In and of itself this source isn't nearly enough to validate the entire article; I was merely trying to help bring about a starting point. I would not be prepared to do the necessary radical rewriting job. As a bit more of an expert, maybe you are the man/woman for the job?Criptopher 16:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
      • Heh heh, I'm a huh. I'm hardly more of an expert; very likely I'm less of one. Again, if the article is deleted that doesn't mean that a better one can't later be created. -- Hoary 16:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The article certainly needs sources, and I'm not convinced everything on it is true however metasemantics is a real and legitimate sub-field within the philosophy of language and the term is used enough among language philosophers (including Kripke and Chomsky) that it seems to deserve its own page. However, it needs to be sourced (though there are definitely sources out there, at least for some parts of the article). Although, it should be noted that the use of the hyphen is improper, it should be metasemantics. --The Way 09:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I've thought from the outset that yes, the term is used by philosophers as well as philosophasters; sorry I didn't make this clear. Well, one could zap the article's entire content and replace it with "A term used in the philosophy of language. {stub}"; but that seems pointless. Or could you rewrite the article afresh, while this AfD is running its course? (I'd then probably change my own vote.) NB the deletion of an article does not necessarily mean that no article with the same title should ever be written. (As many deleted articles are promotional/vanity productions and newly created articles with the same titles are mere second attempts with the same inappropriate motivation, they indeed are or should be automatically deleted; but this is a separate matter.) -- Hoary 00:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Keep but rewrite, sources available on net. --MaNeMeBasat 15:44, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Anybody is free to rewrite the article. If you're sure it merits rewriting and that you are qualified to rewrite it, go ahead. -- Hoary 16:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, WP:OR essay, without prejudice to qualified recreation (per Hoary). Sandstein 21:04, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the term may be verifiable, but the content of this article isn't, Tewfik^Talk 02:57, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, present incarnation not worth salvaging. Choess 05:47, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, a better recreation would be great. --Dom 12:57, 10 October 2006 (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.