Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kairosis

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2009 December 12.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Mango juice^talk 13:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kairosis

Uncited original research. The quotation about catharsis, kenosis, and kairosis is nowhere to be found in the classical corpus or notable secondary sources. Also, I propose to remove sections referencing that quotation in its linked pages. --Quadalpha (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —Quadalpha (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the other websites I find which reference this contain the same text as the Wikipedia article. The rest either contain "kairosis" used as a username, or people referring to the definition on the Wikipedia page. Ignorance is not proof of absence, however. I cannot claim to know enough about classical literature to know that this concept is not used. So, ~~I stay neutral leaning toward deletion, until some other people change my mind.~~ BecauseWhy? (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, the evidence presented below by Quadalpha is enough for me. Delete. BecauseWhy? (talk) 02:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

καίρωσις is listed in Liddell and Scott (the authoritative classical Greek lexicon) with an entirely unrelated meaning (http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.31:1:11.lsj ). The spelling with an omicron is not listed at all. Similarly, while catharsis is a well-known literary concept, kenosis (κένωσις) does not have associations in classical literary criticism at all (http://artfl.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/philologic/getobject.pl?c.34:4:29.lsj ). While this does not preclude their use in later criticism, the lack of references would seem to indicate non-notability, at least. --Quadalpha (talk) 01:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Lack of references means lack of notability. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep see listed references: Accepted Doctoral thesis from a credible University, published conference papers, aesthetics blog. Fifelfoo (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment recent editing has improved the article to the best it will get during this deletion discussion. Please reread and see if your opinions are changed. Fifelfoo (talk) 12:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. While I have been unable to look at the doctoral thesis since I do not have access to it, I would submit that the other two sources do not constitute sufficient reference for what the article claims. The blog entry can be, per convention, dismissed as a "reliable source." I cannot determine whether the book is self-published since I don't know Danish, but a cursory examination shows that it is the product of the Knutepunkt conference. Althought I mean no disrespect to Nordic role-playing, I do question whether such a community would be recognised with the authority to make such sweeping pronouncements as "as catharsis is to the dramatic, so kenosis is to the lyric, so kairosis is to the epic/novel." Perhaps the reference would be sufficient if the article claimed to represent the field of literary criticism from a Nordic role-playing perspective, but then I suspect it would fall afoul of notability guidelines. In any case, the section about Emma (that is, most of the article) seems to be interpretive as well as uncited, and it is based solely on a statement ("as catharsis is to the dramatic ...") backed up only by an unpublished thesis manuscript, a blog, and a role-playing conference. So I suppose what I am saying is still Delete. --Quadalpha (talk) 06:38, 2 July 2008 (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.