Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-ontology


 * 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 redirect to Ontology. Proposed additions to the Ontology article about Post-ontology can be discussed on the Ontology talk page (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Post-ontology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The term post-ontology is little-used (as far as I can see from searches on Google, Google Books, Google Scholar, and JSTOR), and has not received the "significant coverage" required by WP:GNG. The sources cited in the article are little-cited on Google Scholar, and they do not appear to be otherwise influential. Although not part of the rationale for deletion (the rationale is lack of notability), I can't help but note that the jargon used in the article (including in the first sentence, "Post-ontology is a term for theories that transgress classical ontological philosophy") gives the article a hoax-like tone akin to the Sokal hoax article, "Transgressing the boundaries: towards a transformative hermeneutics of quantum gravity". Biogeographist (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Biogeographist (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7  (🗣️ Talk to me • ✍️ Contributions) 20:33, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete fails WP:GNG, better attempted as an addition to Ontology. Bakazaka (talk) 20:06, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Ontology, given the lack of Sig Cov - indeed, the only clear mention (all the others were confusing, somewhat contradictory and otherwise unhelpful) actually noted that since the term Ontology still wasn't fully agreed, the use of post-ontology was impossible to fully clarify. The phrase does exist, but it doesn't seem to have standardised (even into differing factions), making it useless for an encyclopedic article. And Nom is right about confusing - Jarzombek's quote is a particular winner for willfully confusing text, what my Ontology professor referred to as "disciplinic twaddle". Nosebagbear (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment: As nominator, I would not oppose a redirect. The word post-ontology is out there in the wild, but as noted above the coverage is not significant enough and coherent enough at this point for an article. Biogeographist (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2018 (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.