Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Post literacy


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Post literacy

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Original research Nerfari (talk) 23:25, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, agree WP:OR Jezhotwells (talk) 23:55, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and clean up, add more sources. Certainly should be rescued as a possibly encyclopedic topic. Bearian (talk) 00:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and stubbify. It's clearly got an OR problem, but the sources to support an article exist. Saving a stub instead of wasting time on a deletion discussion seems to be the most sensible option. - Mgm|(talk) 10:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete : My fear, after looking at the existing sources which are tangential at best, and googling the phrase, is that there is nothing worth keeping. Google hits refer to a few such speculative essays as this, but mostly this is a term of art in literacy education programs, as "here's what we do with folks after we've taught basic literacy".  I don't like doing things unilaterally, but I'm tempted to blank this article and write two referenced sentences explaining the above usage.  Everything here (that I read: I nodded off a bit in the middle) is a personal essay speculating on the anthropology of the distant future.  T L Miles (talk) 14:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I've blanked most of this and will rewrite. Doing research, this is notable as a literacy education term which has been "drafted" by Michael Ridley, Chief Librarian at the University of Guelph, for a class and a paper (which he has posted EVERYWHERE) to discuss cybernetics.  This usage is slightly more than a neologism, but not notable (as I can't find anyone not in his class who uses it thus). T L Miles (talk) 15:11, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Update: I found one usage of it in Ridley's sense, as the title of a review article in a journal for the 1980s, that then does not use it again even in the course of the review. Unless we can find more, it's a neologism and I'll convert this to the literacy education usage, which is quite common (I've given up after a dozen books and peer reviewed articles that use it in the title). T L Miles (talk) 15:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Update: I've completely rewritten this article as a stub on the more notable meaning. I've left a paragraph in on this fella at Guelph's neologism, commented out, with one reference.  I may add the ref to his paper, but its unpublished presentation notes, and unless it can be backed up by someone else, I think its a neologism that should be excluded.  Please take a look at the current article before closing this AfD.T L Miles (talk)
 * I went ahead and took out the final vestige of the previous topic. Details, and links to the poor references for that meaning are on Talk:Post literacy.  T L Miles (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep per User:T L Miles's excellent work. JulesH (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep This should be an easy keep now -- the delete !votes above were based on a completely different version of the article. Plenty of good sources now. Looie496 (talk) 21:23, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep based on T L Miles' rewrite. Radiopathy (talk) 15:41, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I can't help but feel the "keep" voters have missed a crucial part of the debate here. Nerfari (talk) 21:29, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Query: which would be? T L Miles (talk) 23:53, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well you still seem to be !voting to delete. Have you changed your mind? If so, I would like to withdraw my nomination. Nerfari (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah! Sorry. I Struck that comment -- which of course is not a vote.  I don't feel like I should express an opinion on the current content, as I mostly wrote it and decided that it was an appropriate topic for this title.  We can as an administrator to take a look if you want to close it, or relist it, or you can withdraw it, or whatever you feel is best! T L Miles (talk) 22:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Admin Comment: So is this a withdraw? I can mark it as such instead of keep if you wish me to officially withdraw the AfD. Valley2 city ‽ 01:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I would like to withdraw now. Thank you for the rewrite T L Miles. Nerfari (talk) 20:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep as interesting article on an interesting topic. -65.246.126.130 (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2009 (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.