- 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. If anyone wants anything from this article, just let me know. I'll drop it in your sandbox. Missvain ( talk) 22:18, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Extitution
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Extitution ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
It is not clear what the subject of this article is, and so it adds little or no value to the encyclopedia. It is not exactly original research, but it appears to be refer to academic work that is primary and does not have any secondary references. The article has no lede, which is not required, but which would help to evaluate whether the article has content. A Google search on 'Extitution' turns up two hits, which are the first two references, the Spicer paper in Ephemera, and the Frolov paper. This appears to be an academic concept that has not been accepted, or just a neologism.
The Frolov paper is entitled, " From institutions to extitutions to the post-institutional theory of institutional anomalies", and seems to be really about institutional anomalies. The second sentence in the abstract of the Spicer paper says: "Extitutions are figures which have an ambiguous, destabilised and sometimes threatening quality." That is, systems are complicated.
This is an academic concept that does not appear to have secondary sources. A combination of deletion reason 6, deletion reason 7, and deletion reason 8 apply. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon ( talk) 01:01, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. This appears to be a neologism that has, at least at present, very little if any mainstream recognition. BEFORE searches turn up essentially nothing besides what the nominator has listed. I'm not sure that at this point there is sufficient material for anything beyond (somewhat poorly) defining the term, which would fall afoul of WP:NOTDICDEF; it is also a fail of the GNG at this time due to the complete lack of independent, secondary reliable sources. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:59, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Some superficial Scholar searching shows that the term is, if not ubiquitous, then at least in use, and generally the authors who use it also go to moderate length to define and attribute it (to Spicer or Serres, usually). Examples of papers where this is done include [1] (the very first Scholar hit BTW), [2]( journal link), [3]( journal link), [4], and [5]; plus quite a few more that don't bother with definitions and just attribute and use the term. In view of this kind of uptake, there are no notability issues, and using the primary source(s) for the basics is fine as well. - Still, these sources actually need to make it into the article, and it does need a lede; you can get halfway through at the moment and have no idea what that thing is supposed to be about... -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:25, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
- @
Elmidae: we appreciate your efforts finding these, but I don't think any of them are published, certainly not the Microsoft Word PDF, and they are not reliable sources and should not be added to any article. The first reference you used is a maybe, at least it has a DOI even though it explicitly states itself as an archive, which does not count as published.
Footlessmouse (
talk) 19:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @ Footlessmouse: Actually they all are published, and have DOIs; I have added in-journal links above. (Also, I managed to double up the last one; replaced #4 with the one I intended. Also published with DOI). Not that these little social science things don't look a little weird to my STEM sensibilities. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- @
Elmidae: we appreciate your efforts finding these, but I don't think any of them are published, certainly not the Microsoft Word PDF, and they are not reliable sources and should not be added to any article. The first reference you used is a maybe, at least it has a DOI even though it explicitly states itself as an archive, which does not count as published.
Footlessmouse (
talk) 19:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and WP:NOTDIC. Until such time as the topic catches on a little more mainstream and secondary sources which can be used to build an article are released, this article is not necessary. It is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Footlessmouse ( talk) 19:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:14, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
- Rewrite. The clearest reference seems to be [6] (ref 9 above) , and I am not sure from the way the term is used there that it matches what the article's ref 1 defines it. As for what meaning the term has according to our article, I remain ignorant: " social dynamics that extends beyond the existing institutional framework. " can mean almost anything. If it means social dynamics everywhere except in institutions, it's almost the entire field of social psychology. DGG ( talk ) 14:19, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 06:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Noahfgodard ( talk) 16:54, 2 December 2020 (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.