Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Non-physical entity (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure)  Anarchyte  ( work  &#124;  talk )   09:14, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

Non-physical entity
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

100% original research. References are purely for WP:SYNTH Staszek Lem (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment. Well, the term does seem to have hundreds of hits on Google Scholar. Are you arguing for WP:TNT? Can you elaborate a bit more why this is SYNTH? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 20:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Did you look at these hundreds hits? "A description of an abstract, non-physical entity such as cyberspace", "e in accordance with a view of the mind as a non-physical entity", "An object refers to a physical or non-physical entity. A non-physical entity could be anything ranging from messages, passwords or addresses to gestures and stories", ". A Business Activity is a Non-Agentive Non-Physical Entity", "If we subscribe to this assumption, we are faced with the problem of defining meaning as a non-physical entity that exists prior to being assigned to a particular physical entity, such as linguistic sign", "And if the soul were simply the organization of the body, then it would be far from clear that the soul is a "non-physical" entity.", "Because form is not to be confounded with the material parts, it is an immaterial, and thus non-physical, entity". " consumer is a person, is a living thing, is a physical entity in WN; is a social role, is a non physical entity in CLO", " specifying a calculated geometric entity for representing a non-physical entity comprising: a calculated trajectory or path of motion," etc. etc.&mdash; so tell to yourself now, how the article covers this usage? Where its definition come from? Which sources cited are actually use the term? Etc. It is like to write an article "Non-biological bug" out of bug (disambiguation). Staszek Lem (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep, it has plenty of sources. It has plenty of interest. I seldom look at these AfD pages, every day fine pages are kicked around and booted here, and it would take too much time and Wikipedia attention to try to comment on them daily. The saddest part of Wikipedia. We should keep this well read and interesting page. Randy Kryn 05:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep as an appropriate philosophical concept backed by reliable and verifiable sources. Alansohn (talk) 16:25, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –  Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 03:04, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep This Afd can be closed. This is a structural concept of Physicalism and I suspect the nominator has made this good faith nomination but perhaps has not checked Google Scholar. Multiple scholarly sources like are available defining and using this concept. Thanks.  Lourdes  03:23, 1 February 2017 (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.