Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nonperson

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 with no prejudice towards recreation as a dab, if there are enough articles to support such a page according to the guideline. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nonperson

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Original research; Fails WP:GNG: no considerable discussion of the concept in sources. Even the definition is unreferenced - Altenmann >talk 21:51, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:58, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete The source cited is relevant and seems to be reliable, but the word "nonperson" appears only once in the body of the article, so not significant coverage. Several other appearances of the term can be found in scholarly sources: [1], [2], [3], but all of these are using the term in completely different senses. The term is just so general there is almost no way to have an article about it without WP:OR or simply having a dictionary definition (which would be pointless because the word is self-explanatory). WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 01:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since you mentioned "completely different senses", the word cannot be "self-explanatory". - Altenmann >talk 18:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - There does appear to be a plethora of sources confirming the existence of the "nonperson" concept, with an example of a work that discusses it deeply enough being The Nonperson Treatment in Higher Education: The Case of Contingent Faculty by Roscoe Scarborough.[4] The only thing to do here is to add these sources and summarize how different sources define this concept. Perfectly notable to me. Brat Forelli🦊 12:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What you suggesting is WP:SYNTHESIS. The article you cited used the term "nonperson" in a meaning different rom wikipedia. The same with some ither sources. There is no single coherent concept of "nonperson" so that we can consider its notability. Also, to adding diaparate definitions given by differet authors would propably violate WP:UNDUE rule: why would an opinon of a singlle author be encyclopedic? - Altenmann >talk 15:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"SYNTH is when two or more reliably-sourced statements are combined to produce a new thesis that isn't verifiable from the sources.", as WP:SYNTHNOTJUXTAPOSITION states. There is nothing wrong with a single term having more than one definition. The way in which article will make sense is to simply include the verifiable definitions without trying to synthetize them. There is no single definition of fascism that everyone would agree with. The solution is to include multiple. My vote stands. Brat Forelli🦊 17:21, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is not mere "more than one definition" - these are different definitions for different subjects accidentally having the same name. Per wikipedia rules, every article must cover a single subject. The subject which is defined in the lede has no reference. The source cited does not give any definition, merely uses the term. If you want to add other definitions, this would mean that you assume they describe the same subject, which is exactly WP:SYNTH. - Altenmann >talk 00:32, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It would be great to hear from more editors on this one.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:33, 20 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we address each definition of this concept we would simply end up with a list of WP:FRINGE ideas. Even the one citation to the article as it stands now, only uses the word in its prose once to quote someone else who used the word. It seems to be in the title of the citation just for shock value, If it is felt there is merit to an article for this, then a draft can be created and reviewed before recreating. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dabify. I agree that there is no single coherent concept of "nonperson". However, the article does have a useful See Also list leading to articles on topics people might be looking for, if they search wikipedia for "nonperson". We should simply convert this into a dab page to those articles. -- asilvering (talk) 00:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- A good idea, unfortunately you have to have several valid articles to dabify. - Altenmann >talk 03:36, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  There are indeed several articles in the See Also list that would be reasonable on a dab page. -- asilvering (talk) 10:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ DELETE Upon first blush, it seems there should be an article on this, as in, it seems intuitively that it would be possible to write and source a good article on this topic. Upon a careful read, the fact that this has only one source is a problem. As I begin to look for more sources, I find that the dictionary definition of "nonperson" seems to differ from the more formal, social-sciencey one in the article. I feel that a good article on this concept would have to specify that this is the usage of "nonperson" specific to particular fields and not the general English definition of "nonperson." Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:10, 27 July 2024 (UTC) And on a search for sources I find that while the sole source listed is not the only one that uses this political/legal definition of "nonperson," there are many other sources that use many more, including this one [5]. Here's my Google Scholar link, which as you can see shows the definition in the article and others: [6]. I am concerned that having an article on the political/legal side of this concept that does not acknowledge itself puts Wikipedia in the position of claiming that this is the only way to understand "nonperson." It's "gender" all over again. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:17, 27 July 2024 (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.