Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antenarrative (3rd 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The result was Withdrawn. My concern has been addressed to my satisfaction, and the discussion shows that the subject of the article is notable. (non-admin closure) →Σ τ c. 08:34, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antenarrative[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Essay →Σ τ c. 00:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems that it was originally deleted for being original research and lack of notability. Since there are over 350 Google-scholar search results and many articles in top-ranking journals that are NOT by David Boje it was a mistake to delete the page in the first place and the new page is much better sourced for notability. Antenarrative (talk) 00:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Overall this seems to be a very poorly-written article about an actual notable subject, with good references. It needs a major overhaul, possibly even a complete rewrite, in order to meet the Manual of Style, because it doesn't read as an encyclopedia article. That said, it's an encyclopedic topic that has references. So it should be kept, since AfD is not for cleanup, no matter how badly the article needs it. The reason this is a "weak" keep is because I'd be OK if someone wanted to userfy it to get it in shape out of article space. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 00:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy - Author must understand that we have a Manual Of Style here. This not only stomps all over it, it sends it tumbling into the canyon below. That being said, I think the article could be saved. Userfy and have author bring it up to snuff then submit it for review before bringing it back into mainspace. --Manway 00:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- I have removed a large portion of the article so that the definition can stay and will keep working on adding it on my user-page. Antenarrative (talk) 01:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~Keep [changed recommendation -- see below]I have to admit I was initially taken in by this article's subtle attempt to present itself as a computer-generated parody of postmodernist nonsense -- a charade ably abetted by appearance in the references of such phrases as To be what it is not and to not-be what it is within the unity of a perpetual referring ([1] -- well worth a look, I assure you). But it turns out the article and its references are, in fact, actual bona fide postmodernist nonsense -- at least that's my working conclusion.

But is it notable nonsense? Well the problem is, that of the references not by Boje himself -- who seems to have invented the subject term -- or by Bakhtin or Derrida -- predating invention of the term -- most or all appeared in journals on whose editorial boards [2] Boje serves (many appear to be alternate titles for the flagship Tamara Journal). So until someone can point to a few independent sources which discuss the term, I'm gonna have to stick with Delete.

EEng (talk) 03:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organization Science is ranked as a top journal and the Vaara, E.; Tienarri 2011 citation from that journal is clearly not by David Boje. If you want to suggest that A top journal in organizational studies is not independent then could you please offer guidelines regarding what sources are acceptable to the Wikipedia community and considered as independent? ^[1] ^[2]. Antenarrative (talk) 03:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good. That's one independent source using the term Antenarrative. Any others? BTW, your username suggests you joined WP for the purpose of promoting this concept -- that's a no-no WP:COI. But maybe your actual purpose is to [3]enroll stakeholders in intertextual ways that transform the world of action into theatrics; [though] at the same time the antenarratives never quite get there -- and if so my apologies. EEng (talk) 04:38, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Boje is not on the board of Communication Studies, Barge, J.K. (2004). Grow 2008 "The Gender of Branding: Early Nike Women's Advertising as a Feminist Antenarrative" is in the journal Women's Studies in Communication, also independent of Boje. Also, the book "Antenarrative and narrative: the experience of actors involved in the development and use of information systems" by Drevin, L. and Dalcher, D. (2011) is a book and again independent of Boje. Further, being an editor of a blind, peer reviewed, journal does not mean the articles fail to be independent. Antenarrative (talk) 07:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes thoughts are complex, just because you don't understand what something means doesn't mean that there's nothing there to understand. A similar argument can be made regarding research in communications-network-theory, with similar parody engines being available for that subject. Over all, though, the mainstream of organizational scholarship has cited and utilized the concept of antenarrative on a fairly regular basis. Antenarrative (talk) 07:56, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As already noted, whether this stuff be or not-be nonense is not-be the question -- the question be whether it be or not-be notable nonsense. I see you've added some refs to the article. Why don't you do this: add a section taking your sentence above -- the mainstream of organizational scholarship has cited and utilized the concept of antenarrative on a fairly regular basis -- as its lead. Then weave am infra- (or if you prefer, post-) narrative deconstruction of incorporative scholarly referring i.e. trace briefly prominent uses of the concept, excluding those by its originators or those closely associated with its originators. That would establish notability without the rest of us having to exceed EPA-recommended limits for annual exposure to Derrida. EEng (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The EPA recommends avoidance of ALL exposure to Derrida, but a total life-time exposure of less than two pages may "keep you within the realm of the sane". But that doesn't change notability standards. Note I responded directly to your request for a few independent sources and have updated the page to include 8 of such sources: so lets change your vote :-). Antenarrative (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You efforts have been not for naught -- new not-vote not-be not-keep. But please, can you do something to make the article sound less like parody? I really was very close to adding the {{hoax}} template. EEng (talk) 18:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep if rewritten, I note that Antenarrative has also edited as IP:174.28.98.75 located in New Mexico so I suspect that s/he either is Boje (who has a history of editing his own articles) or someone closely connected. Ideally you would want this written by a third person as there is a potential WP:COI. That said ant-narrative is an important concept in narrative work, it is most closely linked with Boje and it deserves an entry. ----Snowded ^TALK 12:03, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the talk pages for my self disclosure. Dave Snowded, himself, is notable within the field Antenarrative (talk) 14:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

^ "UTD Ranking".
^ "FT Top 45".

Keep—I'm finding that Boje's work is being used in other studies. I found several cases of academic papers using this technique, for example Sliwa, Martyna; Cairns, George. Culture & Organization, Mar2007, Vol. 13 Issue 1, p73-82, 10p, 1 Chart; DOI: 10.1080/14759550601167321 and Durant, R., Gardner, C., & Taylor, K. (2006). Indexical Antenarratives as Invitational Rhetoric. TAMARA: Journal Of Critical Postmodern Organization Science, 5(3/4), 174-182. These are just the first two hits in an academic journal search that returned 100+ entries. I've not culled through them all to see if they're all legitimate hits, but the first few are enough to convince me. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 16:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep - this notion is used by many different scholars and is a term popular in critical management studies/storytelling organization studies. I would, however, suggest wikifying the content more. Pundit|utter 23:07, 30 April 2012 (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.

[1] "UTD Ranking".

[2] "FT Top 45".

[1]

[2]