Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Life space

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 of the debate was Delete Proto||type 12:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Life space

dicdef plus a couple of weblinks; created within minutes of topological psychology, an article I've prod'd. --Trovatore 04:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Appears an attempt to provide inbound links to a a link farm on wikipedia Dananderson 04:58, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, looks like a NN idea from WP:OR. Sandstein 04:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no content, aside from dicdef. Wickethewok 05:13, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete spacecruft ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 06:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I thought I learned something, then I realized I didn't. _{Sarcasm per my user page} T K E 06:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Unencyclopædic in tone and content, the article provides nothing that is not already available in the dictionary.com definition.  (aeropagitica)  06:14, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 07:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, cruft, original research. --Terence Ong 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 21:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak and pointless keep Link cited appears to refer to actual concept by one Kurt Lewin, not recent OR. That this is nonsense to a topologist does not, unfortunately, prevent it from being a genuine object in the social sciences. Septentrionalis 21:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I don't think we should be obliged to keep around content-free articles on marginal topics merely because persons-as-yet-unknown could in principle write an article that would be kept. A more telling case would be the topological psychology article, currently on PROD and scheduled to go away tomorrow. There's enough information out there that someone could write a defensible article on "topological psychology", but I certainly have no interest in doing so and haven't seen any evidence that anyone else does either. If that changes in the future, then the new article should be considered without prejudice from the earlier deletion. --Trovatore 23:45, 10 April 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.