Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Semiotic Matrix Theory (SMT)


 * 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 nonnotable nonsense.  Sandstein  20:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Semiotic Matrix Theory (SMT)

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

Not only is this not notable in any way, it's utter nonsense, and should not have survived this long Dmitry Brant (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (e/c)Very Weak Keep and Stubbify It looks like gibberish but, does produce some hits in Google Scholar which may be relevant. Obviously, I'm not an expert on any of it but, I'm sure there is a policy or guidline somewhere that says articles should be at least remotely understandable to "laymen". Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:00, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nominator says it all. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:56, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense. maxsch (talk) 16:08, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep I think the article needs some serious cleanup but it is referenced, and does have quite a few in line citations. The only problem is how it is organized. The references aren't displayed at the bottom because of a lack of a references tag. The article has tons of in line citations, just in a bad format. Yes, it needs cleanup - but that is not a reason for deletion. The originator of this afd claims a lack of notability, which I believe is clearly show in the article. It just isn't displayed properly. (I'll fix that in a moment). Turlo Lomon (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Nonsense, nominator says what I think. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 16:14, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment. I think we can all agree that it's nonsense, but is it notable nonsense? I tried looking for it in Google scholar but the only references I found were all by Conesa-Sevilla, so it failed that test for the existence of sufficiently many reliably published third-party sources. But maybe such sources exist in places not indexed by GS. Do any of the sources listed by the article that are not by C-S actually discuss Semiotic Matrix Theory in a non-trivial way? If not, it should probably be deleted. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:51, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable. Footnote on the references says it all. Recent refereces do not support. ~ Ningauble (talk) 17:34, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsensical, and I can't find references discussing in depth except those by J Conessa-Sevilla; therefore, they are not independent RSs. Maybe redirect to Biosemiotics? (That article, too, is almost nonsensical, but it seems to be notable nonsense. This one is not.) --N Shar (talk · contribs) 21:23, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Listing on Pages Needing Translation might be appropriate, if the language of the article wasn't at least masquerading as English: Any sufficiently distinct frame of reference would be truly incommensurable, thus intraversable and impassable, within the spaces of self and cultural semiosis. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:03, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete nonsense. WikiScrubber (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (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.