Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/View from nowhere (2nd nomination)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) -- Sam Sing! 15:12, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

View from nowhere
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Previously kept close to a year ago, the discussion centered around the term's alleged usage. This is, instead, a neologism with limited use co-opted from a 1989 book and used sparingly in the 2000s and generally forgotten. The most usage is by one professor who coined it for use in journalism and is the bulk of the usage moving forward. Shows no lasting use, and lacks any real sourcing about the term to build an article from. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. N ORTH A MERICA 1000 16:00, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There's no shortage of coverage out there - see Objectivity and Inter-Cultural Experience, for example. There's obviously overlap with pages like objectivity, in its various senses, but that's a matter of ordinary editing, not deletion.  The phrase should clearly not be a red link. Andrew D. (talk) 19:58, 9 February 2015 (UTC)
 * So where is the coverage? Your book link, for example, is roughly 3 sentences. Thargor Orlando (talk) 12:20, 10 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep but Rewrite as an article on the book, which probably has enough reviews to meet NBOOK.  DGG ( talk ) 01:44, 10 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per meeting WP:N and WP:NRVE. The article does need to have its list of references] used as citations, but needing it done is a reason to do it, not delete it.  Schmidt,  Michael Q. 05:52, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Where are the sources about the topic that show it meets those guidelines? Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:50, 11 February 2015 (UTC)


 * Weak Keep but agree it's probably better reframed as being about the book. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:16, 15 February 2015 (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.