Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post-temporalism


 * 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 as a neologism that is not the subject of non trivial mentions in multiple reliable sources. WjBscribe 03:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Post-temporalism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism used in one journal article. Not part of the established terminology of any field of study or school of thought. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC) 'The above is preserved as the archive of an RfD nomination. Please do not modify it.'
 * Delete Not a theory or a word that anyone else seems to have noticed, (article not referred to in Arts and Humanities Citation Index--though it covers only a few dozen literature journals.)  . Not every academic paper deserves its own article. DGG 00:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, neologism that is not in wide use. Lankiveil 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete as seldom-used neologism. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 07:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep have heard this term referred to now in several lectures and seminars--Charleys2004 10:14, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Above comment is from the creating editor, who should know that original research is not accepted by Wikipedia. Neologisms require much more than a reference to its original creator. Adrian   M. H.  20:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, this article is clearly not "original research" in the sense prohibited by WP:NOR, as it is a strictly neutral and factual account of a properly cited academic source. However, this is still not a notable subject for an encyclopedia article. -- Rbellin|Talk 00:48, 1 June 2007 (UTC)