Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prosfiction
Tools
Actions
General
Print/export
In other projects
Appearance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is the current revision of this page, as edited by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) at 19:43, 8 February 2023 (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.
Revision as of 19:43, 8 February 2023 by MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) (Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12))
(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
- 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) 01:38, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Prosfiction (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Contested prod. No indication it meets inclusion criteria; no references. Not a notable concept. google scholar gives one relevant hit (3 in total), but that's the originator's own paper. henrik•talk 05:08, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unsourced neologism, apparently the author's own fringe theory. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I couldn't find any sources either. Not to mention that the theory itself doesn't actually make sense; perhaps it needs to be explained better...but I think it's saying something about looking forward to fictional futures to integrate them into our consciousness today...or something. Qwyrxian (talk) 09:47, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – fails WP:VERIFY – I tried to find sources to add to this article, but failed to find any. All information in Wikipedia must be verifiable. — Hebrides (talk) 10:00, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not notable, original research, reads like a personal essay. Yunshui 雲水 12:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete not appear to meet WP:GNG.Edinburgh Wanderer 23:33, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong delete, not notable, barely coherent. Hairhorn (talk) 20:51, 15 February 2012 (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.