Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absent referent


 * 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 the improved article. ~ trialsanderrors 07:12, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Absent referent


Originally tagged for speedy deletion. I replaced this with a Prod tag as the article asserts some notability. This was then removed by the article's creator, however I think the reason for my prod (lack of notability) still stands. – Gurch 05:00, 20 November 2006 (UTC) *Delete - neologism, 715 non-wiki ghits. MER-C 05:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC) Improved article -- I have improved the article to address the concerns above. I have included the concept from other realms (mathematics, literature) and included references to the linguistic theory. What do you think? --Bhuston 18:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Changed to Neutral - the above concern has been fixed, but it's still unreferenced. MER-C 13:42, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete neologism... *Redirect and smerge into The Other. 20:00, 22 November 2006 (UTC) SkierRMH, 07:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the s/merge with Other is now obsolete, due to expanded context. Please reconsider.
 * Keep - while this may appear to be a neologism, it is in fact a variation of well-established concept of the Other. However, this is a unique enough varient to deserve its own entry. How is the threshold for notability or secondary sources determined? -- Bhuston 11:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC) As mentoned elsewhere, I now feel the suggested s/merge with Other is now obsolete due to expanded context by several contributors. If you previously voted for Delete or s/merge, please reconsider changing to Keep. Thanks! --Bhuston 21:19, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are two questions to answer: Is this original research?  It's original research if it is a concept invented by Adams that has not been acknowledged by anyone else other than its inventor and not become a part of the general corpus of human knowledge.  To demonstrate that it's not original research, we need sources by people other than Adams discussing this concept.  If it's not original research, is this a duplicate article?  It's a duplicate article if it's just a different name for the same concept. Uncle G 13:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Reply Now I'm confused. I thought Original Research in the WP context refered to that done by a Wikipedian for the article, which is prohibited by WP policy. This is contradicted by your assertion that it is "original research if it is a concept invented by Adams that has not been acknowledged by anyone else...." I think in such a case as you describe, it still may be prohibited, however due to notability. --Bhuston 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * See No original research, in particular the parts relating to ideas held by an "extremely small minority", which in this case would be a minority of 1 if no-one other than Adams has acknowledged the concept. Everything in Wikipedia must have been through a processs of fact checking, peer review, publication, and acceptance into the general corpus of human knowledge. Uncle G 16:56, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment - I am fairly certain that the phrase was current in deconstructionist literary jargon before it was appropriated by Adams for the idiosyncratic use described here. It comes from the truism that all symbolic discourse includes a sign, a signifier (person using the sign) and a referent.  Here it's used as rhetorical dressing for the slight insight that people don't think about live chickens when they eat their McNuggets. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * reply to comment This is quite interesting! It also reminds me of how certain sects of Judiasm use the symbol (sign) G*D to refer to the divine mover, or the sybmol "{}" as the empty set in mathematics. In this context, I would like to assert a strong KEEP and expand the article to include the context you have provided --Bhuston 16:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and smerge into The Other. Grutness...wha?  12:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak keep now. Vastly improved, though still a marginal topic. Good work Bhuston. Grutness...wha?  03:52, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Redirect and merge into Other, which wants expansion and could use some notes about mathematics and etymology as well. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:01, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, article much improved by User:Bhuston. This is the happiest of possible outcomes here.  Thanks! - Smerdis of Tlön 15:26, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Mer-C. Keep Lots of sources now attest to the influence of Carol Adams' use of the term in the ethics of the meat industry as well as sweat shop labor and feminism. Apparently it is used in the same sense in other areas. Edison 18:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Still total original research, still no valid sources for most of its claims, and now even more all over the map in its fuzzy logic. I could probably also find a way to connect the phrase "fried bacon" to the subjects of semantics, literature, ethics, "God", and mathematics, but so what?? wikipediatrix 14:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Fried bacon!? C'mon. That's not fair. Read it again. Bhuston 14:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. There are over 200 results from a search at Google Scholar on "absent referent".  And I am not at all convinced that a merger into other is appropriate; the two terms do overlap, but I don't believe they are similar enough to be appropriately combined.  John Broughton  |  Talk 14:33, 22 November 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.