Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Novelty vs. predictability

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. -- Cirt (talk) 06:59, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Novelty vs. predictability

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:ONESOURCE applies here, and there's no independent, significant source to establish notability. — Timneu22 · talk 19:16, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination - was just about to Afd it myself. ukexpat (talk) 20:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete though more sources were added, theres no categories to merge this to, if this was notable there would be more people posting in this afd, there would actually be votes to keep this article. Longevitydude (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Jclemens-public (talk) 20:17, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as any and all of: failing general notability guidelines, being a dictionary definition, being original research, and lacking sufficient context for other editors to meaningfully expand the article. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per the arugments set forth by DustFormsWords. That said, it's extremely bad form, IMHO, to nominate an article for AfD eight minutes after it is created. Show some good faith and give the article author more time to work on the article, and if it's still a candiate for deletion, why not WP:PROD first? Just yesterday a newbie, writing on what turned out was a notable subject, was bitten in this manner - and left. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also I'd like to point out that if this was notable there would be more people posting in this afd, there would actually be votes to keep this article is a rather faulty argument (and one that smells rather like straw), especially since that statement was made only one hour after the AfD opened...! - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 15:34, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
DustFormsWords is wrong, however, on pretty much every point. This isn't a dictionary article. It's not in any way documenting the meaning, etymology, pronunciation, translation, or grammatical classification of a word or phrase. It's not original research, either. Wikipedia editors haven't made up something that doesn't exist in scholarly literature. And the context from the sources (as well as other scholarly literature that a quick search easily turns up) is clear, too.
What this in fact is is the rather odd decision by an editor to take just one dimension (out of three) from Baxter's/Montgomery's/Rawlins' view of relational dialectics, not even attributing it correctly to them, and make an article on it. Clearly a simple redirect to the actual topic is the answer. Uncle G (talk) 11:50, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- It's defining the term "novelty vs predictability", which is all it can do because it is a term, rather than a discrete concept or theory. It's a BAD dictionary definition, but it's certainly not an article. You've provided the context for the article in your comment but it wasn't in the article. Redirect isn't appropriate because this isn't a plausible search term. - DustFormsWords (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Make up your mind, either it is a term or it isn't. You cannot have it both ways. This is not a dictionary article documenting the meaning, etymology, pronunciation, translation, or grammatical classification of a word or phrase, and is no more a dictionary article than any other stub is. You have the wrong idea about what dictionary articles are. I suggest checking dictionaries to see what dictionary articles actually are and reading the Project:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy that explains the the very error that you are making, of conflating "short" with "dictionary". Uncle G (talk) 03:45, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.