Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reception theory
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep revised stub moink 12:35, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Page is currently blank; I cannot really find enough about this theory to make it seem noteworthy outside of the bio page about the man himself. Master Thief Garrett 02:13, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- There are whole books about reception theory of various kinds. Go back to the version with Stuart Hall, clean up. Charles Matthews 07:55, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Delete as written -- it's content-free.Keep the re-write. --Carnildo 21:27, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)- Keep. Reception Theory deserves its own article - it is a well known school of thought in academic literary criticism. I just wrote a very short stub to replace the blank page. Someone who knows more should extend it. Sheldrake 00:15, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. The stub is fine and encyclopedic. It'll do for now. I'm getting a bit pissed at reading VfDs of articles that should obviously have just been cleaned up. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:02, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The article as originally written consisted of the fragment "for more on the ideas in Stuart Hall's essay encoding/decoding, see reception theory". I would have tagged it for speedy deletion, rather than VfD. --Carnildo 21:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Not very constructive. Wikipedia's article on Stuart Hall, the famous media theorist, will tell you quite a lot about Reception theory--certainly enough to make a good stub. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- The article as originally written consisted of the fragment "for more on the ideas in Stuart Hall's essay encoding/decoding, see reception theory". I would have tagged it for speedy deletion, rather than VfD. --Carnildo 21:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Fine stub. Shanes 22:09, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Weak Keep, as revised. I don't really know enough about the subject matter myself, but I assume the others know what they're talking about! Master Thief Garrett 22:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)Keep, it's fine now! Master Thief Garrett 23:44, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]- Keep as revised. Adequate stub. Vast improvement over initial page. --Dcfleck 20:54, 2005 May 1 (UTC)
- This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.