Wiki143:Articles for deletion/Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)

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 transwiki to Meta. ~ c. tales \\tk// 04:36, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Constructionism and reductionism (wiki)

This is very self-referential to Wikipedia and is not suitable for the main article space. Most information from here cites either meta or other Wikis, neither of which is generally an appropriate source of information. I would suggest moving it to the WP namespace, but this content is already there. And yes, I can see this AFD is vaguely ironic and self-referential itself (cheers strange loops!). Wickethewok 17:24, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep; wikis (including Wikipedia) are a noteworthy topic, as are the social artifacts and customs found therein. When Wikipedia itself is the topic of an article, citing meta or the Wikipedia namespace is entirely appropriate (for documentation of policies and such). Perhaps more reliable sources can be found, but the topic itself is noteworthy. --EngineerScotty 17:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • When Wikipedia itself is the topic of an article, that article must be based solely upon reliable sources outside of Wikipedia. (Notice how many sources Wikipedia and Reliability of Wikipedia both have.) Wikipedia is not a source. Uncle G 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• This article not only cites wikis, which are not reliable sources, as its sole sources, it presents a novel, never-before-published, synthesis and analysis of various philosophies espoused by some editors, a synthesis an analysis that doesn't even appear on Meta, where these various philosophies are discussed. This article is clearly original research, and does not belong in the main namespace. Uncle G 18:08, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete the article does seem to lack reliable sources and thus fall under the WP:V bus. WilyD 20:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as an essay. -- Koffieyahoo 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
• Is there any reasons we shouldn't move this to Meta rather than outright deletion? Shimgray | talk | 13:37, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would support a move to Meta if this information isn't already there. Wickethewok 14:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

• Move to meta or to "wikipedia space" (as against "encyclopedia space"), possibly by merging into any similar piece that exists. Slightly rewritten, with less of an effort to be strictly encyclopedic, this could be a very useful explanation of part of wiki culture. Oh, and wikis are perfectly good primary sources when that is what you are writing about. - Jmabel | Talk 17:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
  • No, they are not. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Bulletin_boards.2C_wikis_and_posts_to_Usenet. Uncle G 19:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 23:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to meta per Jmabel (apart from the perfectly good primary sources bit - I'm with Uncle G on that one). Yomangani^talk 02:07, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to meta with same rationale as Yomangani. I reads as if it is a social sciences theory, and as such I dont see how it is notable without academic sources. Jayvdb 06:36, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. Eusebeus 12:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki per above. digital_me^{(Talk•Contribs)} 14:47, 13 August 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.