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 per WP:SNOW and being an obviously unsuitable topic for a Wikipedia article. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 07:55, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dominant group (Moon) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As with Dominant group (art) (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dominant group (art)), it is hard to discern the actual topic of this article. Although some of the content of this article might fit into an article such as Geology of the Moon, the article seems too intensely focused on the phrase "dominant group" to be meaningful. It seems to be original research and/or a synthesis. I recommend deletion. Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, oddly fixated on the sociological implications of the term "Dominant group", using multiple sources that span the social sciences in an article obstensibly about the Moon. Moogwrench (talk) 20:19, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Clear synthesis. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am the article's creator and substantial contributor. The use of the constituent phrase 'dominant group' as the cited author's demonstrate has to do with the physical science, specifically the planetary science, of the Moon, and zero to do with sociology. On Wikipedia there is an article entitled, "Original research", wherein is the following, "The purpose of the original research is to produce new knowledge, rather than to present the existing knowledge in a new form (e.g., summarized or classified).^[1][2]" For a word or phrase, once a number of purposes or functions (of the metadefinition) are addressed and satisfied, this set of addressed and satisfied attributes is the definition for the word or phrase.^[3] Presenting the existing knowledge of or about the word or phrase in a new form (the metadefinition) and summarizing or classifying that existing knowledge into the new form is something other than producing new knowledge; i.e., something other than original research. It's simply putting old knowledge in a not-quite-so-old-form. The metadefinition has been around a while also and often outside metamodeling. The author Albert referenced here about 'metadefinition' is not a metamodeler but deals with identity, organizations and conversations. The phrase 'dominant group' is first used in evolutionary biology where it is still used and predates its current popular use in sociology. May I recommend that you read WP:DEV. If you want to delete something, why not try the article on Oppression. It has far more things wrong with it than Dominant group (Moon). Dominant group (Moon) meets WP:Notability, WP:Verifiability, is about a topic described in the introduction, is NPOV, and exposes knowledge that is already established and recognized. Use of a metadefinition (itself a definition) is by definition only. Marshallsumter (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

References

• • It's not the case that I only want one article in all of Wikipedia to be deleted; I have also recommended "delete" in other pending AfDs besides this one. Oppression, which you mentioned, seems to me to be a poor article, albeit on a legitimate topic. If you want to nominate that article for deletion, you are free to do so. But what we're discussing here is whether Dominant group (Moon) actually refers to a topic at all. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as synthesis/bollocks. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:04, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as OR/synthesis with no references for the actual topic.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 22:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —LadyofShalott 23:15, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as original SYN. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Delete - article seems to be trying to explain the usage of the term within the geochemical literaure. It appears to be the author's interpretation of that use, and not even a clear exposition thereof. LadyofShalott 23:28, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is no topic here; it's what someone at the other AfD called synthesis by Google. Amusingly, the first "usage" of the term is just the result of failure to correctly parse; it's "dominant (Group 2)," not "(dominant Group) 2." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roscelese (talk • contribs)
• Delete as OR by SYNTH. The same is true of Dominant group (stars), Dominant group (meteoroid), and Dominant group (astronomy), and possibly others in this article family. -- 202.124.74.106 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No clear topic. Glrx (talk) 01:38, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• delete clearly synth--Cerejota (talk) 04:51, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per the other one. Also Metadefinition, another creation of the same user, while a valid concept in math/logic (but hardly worth a separate page, when we have metalanguage) is similarly marred by the mixing of concepts based on common phrases. 86.104.57.135 (talk) 20:27, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.