Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The net and Multiple Realities


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The net and Multiple Realities

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

This article has a huge number of problems. First, it seems to be written about some essay that has no third-party sources. Therefore, there is not indication that the topic is important. Second, the only "reference" is the topic itself; third, it seems to be pushing a point: the point that the essay itself is making. There is simply nothing encyclopedic here, and this should fall under some CSD (like essays) that doesn't yet exist. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 19:12, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Article appears to be an essay, or about an essay, and in either case there is no evidence of notability. Article has insufficient context to allow other editors to meaningfully expand the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:37, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions.  -- Jclemens-public (talk) 00:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I had a look for references which discuss this essay, without much luck, as it seems to have very little traction on the web at present. I think there is the problem of notability; neither the essay writer nor apparently her 9 published works currently have articles [I have no views on whether they should be represented]. The article, if kept, would require vast improvement: the "content" section seems to make very little sense. --  Kateshortforbob talk  14:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete – The subject of this article is apparently a specific article of the same name by Jodi Dean which appears in The Cultural Studies Reader. Simon During (ed.). London: Routledge, 2007. Her article is not notable in itself in terms of citations, , or even reviews. Dean herself might be notable enough as an academic for a WP article  but this chapter in an introductory level reader is definitely not. I'm wondering if this is part of a school or college project. Voceditenore (talk) 15:41, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think if anyone was wedded to the idea of keeping, that this could be turned into an article about the professor rather than the essay, which does seem to be....shall we say 'fringe'. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Note This article has aleady been deleted once (yesterday) for copyright infringement . Frankly the introduction is still closely paraphrased from that conferance speaker's blurb and the rest is basically quotes from the article itself and two other unpublished manuscripts by lord knows who (both were downloaded from blogs). Voceditenore (talk) 16:03, 30 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete, obviously, for several reasons. The article was tagged for speedy deletion on several grounds, including G11 (unambiguous promotion). HJ Mitchell removed teh speedy deeltion tag, saying (among other things) that it "doesn't seem to be advertising anything". I find this odd: it is clearly promoting Jodi Dean's views, and arguably her essay. Certainly delete, and I should have said speedy delete. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:24, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment The article should definitely be deleted, but it's certainly not promoting her views, because the article's creator (for whom English is pretty clearly their second language) has not understood them at all and simply put together some garbled quotes. Also the article is not "recent" as stated in the WP article. It came out over three years ago in the 3rd edition of an introductory reader. It is of extremely marginal importantance in terms of her own academic output and would not even be worth covering in an article about her. Dean has written multiple articles in peer reviewed journals and several full-length books, one of which, Aliens in America: Conspiracy Cultures from Outerspace to Cyberspace (Cornell University Press) was reviewed not only in academic journals but also in the New York Times, the New York Review of Books and most major US papers. She has just published her latest book, Blog Theory: Feedback and Capture in the Circuits of Drive. If the intention was to "promote" her work, this article definitely doesn't do that. Voceditenore (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2010 (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.