Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global urbanism


 * 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. Secret account 07:24, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Global urbanism

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Contested PROD. This article can only depend on one source. I dream of horses (T) @ 22:01, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. In contesting the prod, the creator wrote, "It is the name of a new concept aligned with the new mainstream thinking." Except that the article provides no evidence that this concept, by itself, has become mainstream, or that it even has been the subject of any literature beyond the author who first described it. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 04:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:55, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Blanchardb, you understand the phrase in its opposite sense. It say “aligned with the new mainstream thinking." no that this concept, “by itself has become mainstream”. That is impossible because it is new.  What I am saying is that it exists and it is linked culturally with an important current of thinking (scientific, ext.) . so it has interest in itself. (Opposite case would be if it has not cultural link) Not only the mainstream thinking has the rights to be published. I guess that should be in hands of the people in general and of the wikipedia readers in particular to opt if it becomes mainstream or not. Let them chose by themselves.--Tamisferr (talk) 22:21, 7 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you don't understand why this article has been nominated for deletion. I understand that this concept is "aligned with the new mainstream thinking" but that's not by itself an inclusion for criterion in Wikipedia. The real criterion is that the concept has to become mainstream itself (or at least has been the subject of extensive coverage), the very thing you claim is impossible. Right now, if I understand correctly what you're saying is your argument to keep the article, that's actually an argument to say that since this concept is new and therefore not well-known, you have to wait for it to be better-known before a Wikipedia article can be started. --  Blanchardb -Me•MyEars•MyMouth- timed 23:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete this is an article about a recent self-published non-peer reviewed essay, with no proof of any impact on public discourse. None of the references in the article, which all predate the essay, prove notability. Much of the article itself is non-encyclopaedic self-reflection misusing references. -- ELEKHHT 01:08, 8 March 2013 (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.