Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaos Theory of Literature

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 of the nomination was delete. The arguments against merge are convincing - to summarise them, there's no evidence that this 'chaos theory of literature' exists in any context, so it can't be connected with Hayles. If Hayles had actively associated herself with a "chaos theory of literature", then the article would be a merge candidate, but she didn't - one of her books is merely said to have "laid the groundwork for study". --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chaos Theory of Literature[edit]

Looks like pomo nonsense. Nothing on Google/Books/Scholar. The article is vague about the books it actually mentions--there's a big difference between using an idea as a metaphor to aid in explaining another field, and devising an all-out theory of the field. This is along the same lines as broadly applying Einstein's Theory of Relativity to morality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 01:27

Delete - "While it lacks a central text, two books from the 1990s laid the groundwork for study in this area." - Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought --IslaySolomon 01:56, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Core des at talk. o.o;; 03:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it falls on the OR side (or at least not much), but it does lack a "central text" and the idea is not concrete enough as of yet. AdamBiswanger1 03:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to N. Katherine Hayles. Walter Siegmund (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to N. Katherine Hayles as per Walter Siegmund Bwithh 07:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Walter - a short section in the Hayles article is all this will ever be--Peripitus (Talk) 08:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Walter Siegmund. Smerdis of Tlön 15:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested -- Alias Flood 16:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merging doesn't really make sense unless you're only merging the content regarding Hayles. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 18:26
Move to Chaos theory in literature or Chaos theory in literary criticism or Chaos theory in literature and literary criticism. — goethean ॐ 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Why? There is no theory. This is a term invented by the author of the Wikipedia article. He actually uses the fact that one of the characters in Jurassic Park was a chaotician as evidence for this "theory". It's just pomo garbage. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-07-05 19:38
Delete not coherent or notable enough a theory to merit a mention. SM247^{My Talk} 23:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I don't think a merge is necessary in this case. The "theory" as it currently is described hasn't been developed well enough to be notable; from what I can tell, I don't think it could be expanded enough (even as a subsection) to be notable without relying on original work. HumbleGod 23:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no theory here, just chaos theory on the one hand and literature on the other. There's no "theory of" anything. Critics are using chaos theory ideas to read texts - this is no big deal. In pomoland, you can use whatever the hell you like to read whatever the hell else you like. Merging with Hayles doesn't make sense, since nothing in this article characterises her work in particular. Using chaos theory to "analyse" Jurassic Park is surely the ultimate sledgehammer/nut combination. --DaveG12345 02:00, 6 July 2006 (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.