Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faux modern
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Faux modern[edit]
- Faux modern (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Can not find any info on this "ideology". Would not even know where to start since the article to me reads od meaningless buzz words. "Faux-Modern Philosophy is an ideology that is projected to gain prominence towards the end of the post-modern era, generating a new worldview regarding personhood, ethics, art, literature, science, and culture." The entire article really says nothing. Searching for the one reference "Faux-Modern: The Next Epoch" shows the only hit is this article. Ridernyc (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. When we're citing Webster's as a reference, that's a bad sign. If the term becomes widely used, it might merit an article - but there is no notability at this time. UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 01:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I can't find any sources that explain this term (including not being able to find Assist News Article listed in the article). Every mentioning of this term that I have come across has been solely in relation to architecture, and even then it is said in passing. TheTito Discuss 22:03, 11 February 2010 (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.