Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary antecedent

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 NO CONSENSUS. — JIP | Talk 10:08, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary antecedent

This appears to be a clear-cut case of Wikipedia:No original research, which is unfortunate, because it really is an interesting article. Delete, and maybe if it becomes standard terminology, we can dig this out again. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Does the policy on original research strictly exclude terminology that isn't "standard"? oneismany 10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. No obvious examples of this being a current usage, and I have to say the first paragraph made my head spin. I can see where the author is going, the study of imaginary objects which assume a life outside the fiction in which they appear is sometimes quite interesting (especially the Hith-Hiker's Guide, which Adams did get going as h2g2.com) but I'm not sure this is the right place for it, and as currently written it certainly counts as original research. - Just zis Guy, you know? 20:12, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment No research is involved, it is only a combination of existing topics. The use of 'undecidability' to relate the topics is verifiable from published sources oneismany 10:22, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. This doesn't seem to be original research. Google returns 8 hits for the search term "imaginary antecedent." Eight hits isn't a lot, but enough to support that this isn't the author's original research. —Brim 20:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Commment I believe you are misinterpreting what Wikipedia means by original research. If an expert writes a book which becomes a well regarded publication on its topic, then that author comes here and contributes on the same subject, that does not count as original research even though it is the original article. Conversely, if Joe Schmo writes a crack-pot theory that generates no stir beyond just a few Google hits with it, then Jeff Blow comes here and adds it to Wikipedia, it is still original research even though it is not added by the original author. Johntex\^talk 21:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Existing topics such as 'false document' are insufficient assesments of the subjects referred to as 'imaginary antecedents.' There may be some crossover in the subject matter, but this topic is more of a disambiguation than a form of research. oneismany 10:26, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Have you looked at the actual Google results, though? They have little to do with the topic of the article. I don't question that the phrase is valid English, but the very precise definition in the article has (I believe) been invented by the creator of the article. —HorsePunchKid→龜 18:12, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Huh. I had no idea that first-order logic was considered 'research.' All this time I thought I've just been doing math, I could have been publishing it! Let me ask, would hand-drawing a new sketch of a familiar concept be considered 'original research' too? oneismany 10:28, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I have misused the WP:NOR policy. In my limited time here, it has become fairly clear that this encompasses topics beyond research: neologisms and attempts to coin phrases, for example. What you have done is taken two words that could be combined to mean any number of things and given them a very specific literary definition. This is simply not appropriate for an encyclopedia.

Here's a thought experiment. Little Johnny Schoolboy writes a book report on one of these books you cite, like LotR. In this, he refers to the Red Book as an "imaginary antecedent" without further explanation, assuming that his very knowledgeable teacher will understand the term. The teacher grabs her red marker and circles the term, putting a few big question marks next to it, because—while she certainly knows both words—she has never seen them used this way. Johnny gets his paper back and complains, saying he read it in an encyclopedia, and all the teacher can say is, "I'm glad you put so much effort into your paper, but nobody uses this term. Nobody will understand it when you use it unless you explain it further, so why use it?"

It seems to me that you're trying to invent a new phrase, like dangling participle, and this is not the place to coin a term. —HorsePunchKid→龜 19:53, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Okay, I see your point about that and I don't think this specific phrase needs to be the title of this entry. There is no 'imaginary x' topic however, and the subject matter discussed in this entry is not specific to that phrase. The entry is in the process of being broadened to incorporate more perspectives and cross-references. Sorry for the neologism; this entry is under construction, so please be patient and don't delete it while it is in progress. Of course any assistance in grounding the subject in existing terminology would be appreciated.

• Delete original research. Johntex\^talk 21:55, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. per above mikka (t) 00:27, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, clearly OR. And really, it just seems like pseudo-postmodern doubletalk, frankly. MCB 01:45, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Comment Perhaps the wording can be improved, more examples included, or further distinctions noted, but if the article is insufficient somehow that doesn't also make it meaningless. oneismany 10:29, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

• Keep Neither 'imaginary' nor 'antecedent' is invented for the article, nor is 'imaginary antecedent' an original term. The topic is not invented for the subject matter, the subject matter necessitates the topic. oneismany 10:36, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If frogs, for example, were listed separately as fish and as reptiles, would it be 'original research' to list them as amphibians? If the characteristics of frogs are well known, i.e. that they are born in water but live in water and on land, is it research to point out a class of similar animals that are already well known? oneismany 12:07, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

If 'imaginary' antecedents (or referents) are original research, then why not 'nonexistent' antecedents (or referents)? Where is the third-party verification that disqualifies 'nonexistence' as original research? Both the usage of 'imaginary' and 'nonexistent' are standard usage. If one is excluded from the encyclopedia, is it not POV to include the other? oneismany 12:19, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Delete - Interesting for head-spinning, but not a real topic. I am not even sure the author understands this uninteresting application of incompleteness theory. As for the google hits, those are not addressing this idea of 'false document' which is already addressed on Wikipedia. Obvious delete. Cyferx

• Keep - Not OR (rather, perhaps, "original perspective"). The term might be neologistic, but the idea obviously isn't. (It is clearly a superset which encompasses false documents, not a synonym.) If there is no equivalent terminology to describe this important phenomemon, deleting it simply diminishes the encyclopaedic nature of wikipedia. — JEREMY 08:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as original research + pseudointellectual rant Bwithh 03:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - 'Imaginary antecedent' may be original, but 'false antecedent' is a better-known concept. Perhaps it should be renamed.

• keep —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Geo Swan (talk • contribs).

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.