Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ineffablism

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. I'll also nobble the new tite, and create a redirect from that to Ineffability. -Splashtalk 23:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ineffablism

Author removed my (unreferenced) tag so I think it should go to AfD Ruby 05:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC) It was my first entry. Sorry, it was a accident. I will not remove what you write anymore.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drpaluga (talk • contribs) .

  • Delete probably should be speedied, but what the heck. TheRingess 05:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • KEEP Author apologized for accidental removal of unreferenced tag.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Drpaluga (talk • contribs) .
  • The article has still got to cite references or it's got to go. Ruby 06:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Terence Ong 06:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - non-notable, new (2006), personal philosophy. —ERcheck @ 06:48, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Not new, just misspelled. See my comments below. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 08:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
No, that's not what I mean. I need a third-party source for the information in this article, not a link to another WP article. Ruby 07:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

**Now you've got a copyright violation issue. Ruby 07:37, 11 February 2006 (UTC) A little too hasty. Ruby 07:47, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you be more precise? What is the issue specifically? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpaluga (talk • contribs)
  • Merge and redirect to Ineffability, which is the more common name for the genuine (though widely disparaged) philosophical concept. (It's spelled "ineffabilism" in any case.) Replace current external link with sources like [1] or maybe [2]. Also, [3]. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 07:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: While the term "ineffabilism" may be found to have been used in a number of papers, its usage is simply from taking "ineffable" and using the suffix "-ism". (Which, in my opinion, doesn't merit its own article, nor inclusion in ineffable). (See comment below). However, the term in this case, "ineffablism" (sic), is specifically taken from the article creator's bio (possibly self-submitted) on an independent filmmmakers site. In view of the vote stuffing (7 votes, see all "unsigned" above) by the article's creator, seems like an attempt to get a Wiki reference to his personal philosophy. Note that all versions until the last one on 07:30, 11 Feb 2006 (UTC) indicated that is was a philosophy developed by the author, and in fact is is newly created (2006) (information in many of the first versions of the article). Thus, it doesn't merit a merge, which would support this neologism/"neo-philosophy". —ERcheck @ 12:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
      • The claim that the term is new and was invented by the author of the article is the ONLY thing bogus about this article. It is NOT new, nor is this a new definition for the word. Adding the suffix "=ism" is the most common way to form names for philosophical schools of thought; see foundationalism, reliabilism, internalism, etc etc etc. A significant amount of time has been spent criticizing the doctrine of ineffability as it has been presented in this article. Just because the author of the article was only right by coincidence and has not conducted himself well in this AfD isn't sufficient justification for deleting useful information on a real philosophical term. Believe me, before I researched this matter I fully intended to vote "strong delete." - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 13:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge and redirect to Ineffability as per AdelaMa.Capitalistroadster 08:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, I have trouble visualizing the number of mistakes someone would have to make to search for this term. Adrian Lamo ·· 10:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Adrian. The author also seems to have spammed this AfD. -- Mithent 14:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • 'Delete per Adrian. I cannot find this word (even spelled differently) anywhere. Logophile 14:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge /Redirect to (Divine) Ineffability synonym for transcategorial. Improper usage perhaps, but I've heard it used. WeniWidiWiki 01:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment AdelaMa made some great enlightening points on this subject but the core of my explanation and rationalization for this ineffable perspective (Ineffablism), using the ideas of “context” and “relativity”, is singularly mine and original and is worth of being kept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by user:Drpaluga (talk • contribs)
    • Comment on creator's note above...this AfD is addresses the article on "Ineffablism" (sic) — a neologism / original research/personal philosophy , not the concept of "ineffabilism" — an established concept (per AdelaMae). I'd support a well-written, validated article on "ineffabilism", but, this "original" concept with a different spelling falls under Wikipedia is not a soapbox.—ERcheck @ 15:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment. You just gave another reason to delete it- original research/thought is NOT encyclopaedic, nor worthy of an article. --Rory096 19:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. I would encourage AdelaMae to insert the results of her research into another article, though. AndyJones 15:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Although it appears that this entry will be deleted, I wish to thank all those for their kind, but generally rejecting, feedback. This idea may have lost the battle to be found on Wikipedia, but the war to uncover Universal Truth never ends and the revelation of this concept, Ineffablism, charges towards higher religious and philosophical enlightenment. Please consider keeping it or modifying the entry so that this important theological knowledge can be accessed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drpaluga (talk • contribs)
  • Delete. Without evidence that the term is in common enough use, the term should not be in Wikipedia. Steve Casburn 04:19, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. Though controversial I believe this article merits further discussion and time for others to view it and add their comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dmayer76 (talk • contribs)
    • I'm sorry, but I do not see any controversy. This is a philosophy developed in 2006. It is not yet established knowledge so it does not yet belong in an Encylopedia. I do not see any Wikipedians supporting the article, above, except (i) the creator who is also apparently (judging by his user name) its subject and (ii) AdelaMae, who can put the record straight once the article has been redirected. Note to closing admin: User:Drpaluga has subsequently created Ineffabilism.
  • Agreed, and I just want to comment that I will not be terribly crushed if this article is deleted; it seems to me that it would be a useful spelling-error redirect (I had to double-check to make sure that this was actually a misspelling), but the relevant information belongs on Ineffability and deleting Ineffablism would, if nothing else, highlight the fact that Wikipedia does not publish original research and insisting that your article is original research is not a good way to convince people it should stay. - AdelaMae (talk - contribs) 11:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Of interest that the article's creator has updated his website to "correct" the misspelling. On his site, he still claims to have created the philosophy, though he has linked to pre-2006 articles from others on the concept of ineffability. —ERcheck @ 05:53, 15 February 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.