Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary antecedent (renomination)


 * 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 debate was Delete.  (aeropagitica)  21:06, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Imaginary antecedent
Was previously nominated for deletion and no-consensused, although for me it seems like a consensus to delete. It is apparently non-notable (93 Google links) original research not citing its sources and overall lacking coherency and encyclopedic tone (see last section). Therefore I renominate it for deletion. - Sikon 18:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 'This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!' &mdash; Rebelguys2 talk 07:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, sadly, it's an interesting article but it does appear to original thinking. Kappa 12:05, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Roy  boy cr ash  fan  [[Image:Flag_of_Texas.svg|30px]] 07:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. - Rynne 18:06, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Interesting, but almost certainly original reseach.  Wikipedia's not the venue for this.  dbtfz talk 20:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, Neither 'imaginary' nor 'antecedent' is invented for the article, nor is 'imaginary antecedent' an original term. The topic is not invented for the subject matter, the subject matter necessitates the topic. Extremely interesting, useful argument that I found on my search for information related to self-reference and utilitarianism. Oliver Keenan 14:59, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Before messaging me in relation to this vote, please note that I have already studied No original research. I am certain that with some effort most of what is stated in this article could be verified in accordance with Verifiability and referenced. Oliver Keenan 14:59, 11 March 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.