Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monologic expertise


 * 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. slakr \ talk / 04:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Monologic expertise

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Questionable content, and no justification of notability. The corresponding dialogic expertise article is dubious, and this even more so. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:35, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The term looks as though it was made up by someone who thought that the 'dia' in 'dialogic' means two. (I mean the original academic cited, not the user.) And the glowing references to post-modernism make it hard to take seriously. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I retract the statement above, because of course "monologue" is in contrast to "dialogue". But nonetheless, this all seems to rely on the work of one particular author, and there is no particular reason to use their terminology. There must surely be at least one Wikipedia article on collaborative editing - oh, yes, there is! Imaginatorium (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:32, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

 Delete. I agree with Imaginatorium that these terms make no real sense as they are being used. Expertise at monologue or dialogue is not what is meant by these terms as coined but expertise developed through monologue or dialogue. That surely refers to "learning" or "collaborative writing or editing", as Imaginatorium suggests. Of course, many things or terms or idea that make no sense nonetheless would be considered notable. But a search on High Beam reveals only two articles in which monologic and expertise are used in the same article and they are not used together. A search on Google finds little more except the article about Wikipedia in which collaborative writing or editing producing a better more expert product is found. So even if we were to grant that these phrases mean something, or even are better ways to express other concepts, we cannot find they are notable or used outside this very small context. Donner60 (talk) 03:30, 15 March 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 10:12, 22 March 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.