Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synekism


 * 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 in some form (those wishing to merge are free to do so as usual). "Confusing" isn't really a case for deletion if it can be corrected by editing. --Sam Blanning(talk) 01:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Synekism


Article is confusing mass of information Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 00:04, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Wintermut3 23:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; All the article needs is proper editing/expansion Irk(talk) 00:10, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. 35 hits on Google; it's a neologism, apparently. -- Mikeblas 00:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep; It seems like all this article would need is a little fixer-upper by someone who actually knows something about the topic. Mrmaroon25 00:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Edward Soja Koweja 00:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Edward Soja like stated above because all the google hits say something along the lines of "Soja's notion of synekism..." Wikipediarul e s 2221 01:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Edward Soja Hello32020 03:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge (and redirect) to Edward Soja. Too much of a neologism to have its own page.- Mgm|(talk) 10:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge. Its just a stray definition. DGG 19:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge or Delete I agree to the above that it's a reletively limited and new neologism, but from the article itself it appears to define the concept poorly, I could possibly agree to an article on it if the article asserted the notability of the theory or its importance in context. I have some sociology background and I've never heard the term, maybe it's more common at the higher levels, but in my opinion, for this to be a full article it needs to A: assert the importance of the theory B: explain it better in vernacular that is understandible by the layperson and C: cite more specific sources.
 * Merge into Edward Soja. Doing so will help the Soja article which could also use some attention. I've identified an article by Soja and a book review about his work that are more recent than anything currently listed at the current Soja article and will update Soja's page with this material. Keesiewonder 00:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * FYI I am working on updating the references as promised, now ... :-) Keesiewonder 11:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've linked synekism to Edward Soja. Can the former's linkless tag be removed during an AfD? Keesiewonder 12:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Comment - I'm willing to settle for a merge; this probably wasn't the smartest afd I've submitted. If anyone is willing to complete the merge, I would be glad to withdraw my request (I think I'm allowed to do so in this situation). Patstuart(talk)(contribs) 14:24, 3 December 2006 (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.