Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Postmodern social construction of nature


 * 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 No consenus.  Citi Cat   ♫ 04:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Postmodern social construction of nature

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This seems to be just an essay TravelingCat 04:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

keep- this is the first draft of this article, and it refers to a real theory of postmodernism, as the first links installed demonstrate. The whole point of wikipedia is to provide info, and this clearly qualifies. Leave it for a few weeks, then see how it is built on by environmentalists and philosophers, since I don't have time to do all the edits now.Jembot99 04:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC) comment- how to you propose to let it be edited appropriately if it is deleted? Perhaps you can post calls for it to be edited first? I have made some edits whih hopefully clean it upJembot99 05:16, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment This is written in a vaguely essay form - as such, it doesn't belong in Wikipetia. If it's kept, it needs to be cut down to a stub and started again in the form of an encyclopedic entry. Wikipedia is not a college paper - thank God. MarkBul 05:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying it's not real or informative, I'm saying it's not encyclopedic. It's just rhetoric. The first sentence has no definition of what the article's subject is or where it came from, and you have actual rhetorical questions in it. TravelingCat 05:04, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete the 'postmodern' bit makes it far too vague, and relevant info can be added to (for example) ecophilosophy & social construction &rArr; bsnowball  07:06, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as obvious violation of WP:NOR. Eusebeus 08:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment Keep. Essay-like portion has been removed. Social constructionism: the concept "Postmodern social constructionism of nature" is already covered in that article, under the sub head Social_constructionism. Unless If the current article's content can be expanded to supply high-quality, well-sourced information that goes beyond what's already in the main article, I see no reason to have an independent article for that aspect of constructionism. At this point, I would therefore lean towards delete, but I made this a comment, because a stub is also an acceptable  alternative (if the unsourced,  essay-like last section is removed. delete. The rest meets WP:NOR). I hope the article's author will consider contributing content to the main article instead; if the section covering postmodern social constructionism of nature has enough content later to justify an independent article, it could be split off from the main article, but with a title that better reflects its association with the main article (i.e. "constructionism" not "construction"). Pia 10:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC). Changed to keep. Pia 20:26, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as non-notable and also sounds like original research. Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  12:44, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * cumment- try not to let the bitterness of losing your beloved WUDC rankings get wiped Niaz. I expect I'll be seeing you on other pages you've nominated soon.  Keep fighting the power.Jembot99 13:28, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not fighting here. I did what I felt good for WP. By the way, you even don't know how to speak in a polite way. God bless you! Niaz  (Talk •  Contribs)  13:32, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. Essay.  Cap'n Walker 19:22, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Weak keep / merge: I like the removal of the essay-like elements, but this article feels like a subset of some other article on Postmodernism or Postmodern social construction or something. But I don't know where I would merge if, it it were to be merged. Alba 00:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeh, it's been semi-merged, but I think it should continue on its own. Appears to be no consensus on moving it, so move to keepJJJ999 03:26, 23 September 2007 (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.