Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonperson

Nonperson

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Original research; Fails WP:GNG: no considerable discussion of the concept in sources. Even the definition is unreferenced - Altenmann >talk 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Weak delete The source cited is relevant and seems to be reliable, but the word "nonperson" appears only once in the body of the article, so not significant coverage. Several other appearances of the term can be found in scholarly sources:, , , but all of these are using the term in completely different senses.  The term is just so general there is almost no way to have an article about it without WP:OR or simply having a dictionary definition (which would be pointless because the word is self-explanatory). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Since you mentioned "completely different senses", the word cannot be "self-explanatory". - Altenmann >talk 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: It would be great to hear from more editors on this one. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Keep - There does appear to be a plethora of sources confirming the existence of the "nonperson" concept, with an example of a work that discusses it deeply enough being The Nonperson Treatment in Higher Education: The Case of Contingent Faculty by Roscoe Scarborough. The only thing to do here is to add these sources and summarize how different sources define this concept. Perfectly notable to me. Brat Forelli🦊  12:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * What you suggesting is WP:SYNTHESIS. The article you cited used the term "nonperson" in a meaning different rom wikipedia. The same with some ither sources. There is no single coherent concept of "nonperson" so that we can consider its notability. Also, to adding diaparate definitions given by differet authors would propably violate WP:UNDUE rule: why would an opinon of a singlle author be encyclopedic? - Altenmann >talk 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * "SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources.", as WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION states. There is nothing wrong with a single term having more than one definition. The way in which article will make sense is to simply include the verifiable definitions without trying to synthetize them. There is no single definition of fascism that everyone would agree with. The solution is to include multiple. My vote stands. Brat Forelli🦊  17:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry, this is note mere "more than one definition" - these are different definitions for different subjects accidentally having the same name. Per wikipedia rules, every article must cover a single subject. The subject which is defined in the lede has no reference. The source cited does not give any definition, merely uses the term. If you want to add other definitions, this would mean that you assume they describe the same subject, which is exactly WP:SYNTH. - Altenmann >talk 00:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.