Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Primary Society and Secondary Society

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. - Mailer Diablo 01:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Primary Society and Secondary Society

Primary Society and Secondary Society (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

This is about relatively new (Taoist?) theory. From the looks of it, only one person has done work on it, which makes sense seeing as it was developed last year. Nothing via Google. A lack of independent sources means it's unverifiable and inherently non-neutral. Wafulz 21:00, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete non-notable theory. Precisely two google hits for full phrase in inverted commas: one is the WP article, the other has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Appears to be spam for the single referenced text. Sam Clark 21:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
• weak keep I can not tell whether a Taoist theory is notable, so I would not deleteDGG 00:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
  • It's not notability at stake here, it's verifiability. --Wafulz 01:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete The article is quite profound in places but ultimately reaches the familiar conclusion that Eastern societies are less individualistic than Western societies. I'm not sure how useful the primary/secondary society dichotomy is given that human instinct and genetic predisposition presumably form the basis for secondary society just as they form the basis of primary society. Regardless, there is no indication that the book on which it is based warrants the extensive analysis given in the article. I can't imagine that wikipedia is the place for reviews of non-notable books. Allon Fambrizzi 02:58, 29 November 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi
• Delete. An article that expounds a novel theory by You-Sheng Li, has as its only sources a website and a text by You-Sheng Li, and was written by You-Sheng Li (talk • contribs)? Coming up with the Wikipedia policy alphabet soup that applies in cases like this is left as an exercise to the reader. Sandstein 21:41, 29 November 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.