Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mediatization of communicative action


 * 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. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Mediatization of communicative action

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

apparently one person's theory. I can not really fix it, because I cannot figure out what it is talking about.  DGG ( talk ) 06:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:TNT. Most sources are in German. For a highly theoretical topic in social sciences, this presents an impenetrable barrier because of translation problems etc. The article is unintelligible. When wp:secondary coverage about the topic appears in English, this might have a chance. Someone not using his real name (talk) 23:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Northamerica1000(talk) 05:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete, largely because of the total lack of clearly-pertinent English sources. Take something that's published entirely in a different language, and you could write about what the sources say on that topic, but it would have to be something specifically about the foreign-language phrase.  We might well be able to have an article on "Mediatisierung kommunikativen Handelns", talking strictly about the different German sources that explore the idea, but something that's deeply theoretical (funny how "highly theoretical" and "deeply theoretical" are the same...) and not in English really can't cover the concept itself appropriately.  All we can do is basically an extended literature review right now, without bringing in English sources to establish facts in fields that might be related to the topic.  Nyttend (talk) 16:06, 8 February 2014 (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.