Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Theory of Structure and Counterstructure


 * 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. --Core desat 00:45, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Theory of Structure and Counterstructure

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

If the article is correct, this is a newly developed theory that has not been referenced by any secondary sources (none show up on a google search). It has been substantially edited by two people, one of whom is clearly the author of the theory. A search of "structure and counterstructure" comes up with a few more google hits. Some of which show that this phrase has been used as a background theory by other academics. For example, 1993 "The Legend of The First Pahkola: Structure and Counter-Structure in a Syncretistic Yaqui Myth" by Alfred Robinson, and, 1981, "Enoch, Levi, and Peter: Recipients of Revelation in Upper Galilee", by George W. E. Nickelsburg. These are, however, different uses of the term. I am unsure of the right attitude to take to this article. So this is a somewhat tentative AfD proposal. Is wikipedia a place for "new theories developed by academics and published in a couple of places", but not yet treated seriously by anyone else? Anarchia 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I am too new to Wikipedia to understand its rules - so my apologies if my intervening here is inappropriate, and my application of 'Be Bold' too .....bold. My outline of the theory of structure and counterstructure seems to pose questions. I can only say, hoping it clarifies, and helps, that this theory has already been published in reputable scholarly volumes, and so does not attempt to use Wikipedia to publish original research. That I can do elsewhere - well, I have... Yes, it's my own invention - insofar as any humanistic idea can be entirely new...  I think it explains itself clearly, and is interesting, and important to a number of philosophical problems, so should be on Wikipedia. I'm not sure that it isn't possible to over-emphasize the 'don't write about your own ideas' - if applied ovevr-reductively, this could too easily be got round by networking and at the same time, lead to a failure to keep up- to- date. Most of all, I'd really like to see any intellectual contagion that might arise from putting this theory on to the Wikipedia cognitive multiverse, since it's so vast and diverse. Wikipedia is such an essential example of memetics at work (I am a member of the Societe francaise de memetique). Thanks for your attention! DrAngelaRyan 23.00, 24 September 2007 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 22:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * delete wp:coi wp:n The issue is not really that it is that it is published, it is that it is notable.  in the case of literary theory, we need solid secondary sources like dictionary of literary theory, or notable author citing, etc.  --Buridan 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete This looks like a paper that got an A minus last spring. This formula, developed by Angela Ryan, "owes obvious debts to Hume and Hegel".  Oh, obviously.  Mandsford 00:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
 * The Hegel part does seem obvious enough. But not all academic theories merit an article until other people also write about them. DGG (talk) 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete. WP:COI isn't in itself grounds for deletion. However, the so far minimal presence on the WWW and, more importantly, zero presence in Google Books and Google Scholar, suggest it falls way below the threshold of notability for academic ideas. Even if it's not original research, Wikipedia is not a publisher or venue for spreading memes. Gordonofcartoon 02:28, 25 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.