Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Machado-Squires Symbiosis

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 was Delete - it can be recreated if sources are ever located. Yomanganitalk 00:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Machado-Squires Symbiosis

Nomination for deletion Suspected hoax. Fails WP:V. Can't find supporting evidence on google, google books, google scholar etc. In the original version of the article[1], supposed Symbiosis journal wikilink in article actually leads to an Indian media school which uses "Symbiosis" as its corporate brand name and not as an indicator of scientific field[2]. This problematic link was removed some time after afd began. New version of the article claims that the Arts Council England published the first paper classifying the supposed phenomenon, but this organization does not publish academic papers of this sort - its largely an organization for distributing lottery money to arts organizations. Bwithh 06:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC) (Updated) Bwithh 19:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete per nomination. Movementarian (Talk) 06:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Whether or not it's a hoax, it remains a highfalutin' neologism for a perfectly commonplace phenomenon that really doesn't need such a name, and ain't really symbiosis either. This makes it complete bollocks in my opinion. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:15, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep. The relative merit of the term should not be confused with the merit of the article. There are, I'm sure, quite a few things in the world that make little or no sense, and exist nevertheless. My impression is that MS-Symbiosis is more a pretentious term of convenience (albeit an inconvenient one) than a real "phenomenon," but that's my only real complaint about this article. - Arrachface 22:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC) — User:Arrachface (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Update I'm copying comment below from article talk page made by article creator Bwithh 22:21, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Keep comment from User:Runhobbit, the article creator — User:Runhobbit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. :

While the subject is a relatively obscure analysis of epistolary collaborations in history, the article itself has been referenced in several subsequent articles and was a covered topic at a recent Literary Arts Symposium. I am attempting to find verifiable sources, but there simply isn't anything of this precision available outside of literary journals.

Above comment copied here from article talk page by Bwithh 22:21, 21 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.