Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tomorrow (time)

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 keep. (non-admin closure) f eminist 03:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow (time)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. No sources. Not notable. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Its a widely used concept, like present and yesterday and it has a source. - Shiftchange (talk) 10:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. : Noyster (talk), 11:11, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while the current version is little more than a WP:DICDEF, to say the concept of tomorrow isn't notable, or that no source can be found for this (see WP:BEFORE), is just ludicrous. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:32, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its one of the most difficult subjects that I have ever had to search for. I'll try harder. - Shiftchange (talk) 04:20, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, discussed in linguistics and philosophy sources. Antrocent (♫♬) 19:31, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per WP:HASPOT. I have just added a section entitled "Learning and language". --Edcolins (talk) 21:07, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The paper Trigg, Roger, "Thought and Language." Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society, Vol. 79, Aristotelian Society, Wiley, 1978 contains the sentence "The concept of tomorrow is doubtless very difficult to acquire without language." I can't access the full paper however... Perhaps the article could be further expanded based on that paper. --Edcolins (talk) 21:14, 2 February 2017 (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.