Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abstract concept generator

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. WP:SNOW, there's no reason to let this sit out any longer when it's clearly known where it's headed. —SpacemanSpiff 18:43, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract concept generator

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

Nonsense article, possibly with OR. Individual sentences can be parsed as English, but taken together, the article is gibberish - it doesn't address the page's topic! References are only here for padding, it looks like. Editor who created this page, User:Marshallsumter is currently banned for disruptive editing. Hundreds of other articles from this editor are being canvassed. Please help! AstroCog (talk) 22:17, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There are virtually no sources that discuss "Abstract concept generator ". I found one book mentions it once: "Some aspects of text grammars: A study in theoretical linguistics and poetics" by Dijk. But it is mentioned in passing, and that is not sufficient for an entire WP article. If there is such a ting as an ACG, any material related to it could be put into some article on linguistics, grammar, or the like. --Noleander (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Reads like it was written by an abstract concept generator. Or by mashing together the ledes of several vaguely-related articles. Not as something that makes sense for itself, in any case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete consists of definitions from several different topics stuck together with WP:OR. The term itself doesn't seem to be notable and even if it is the article would have to be rewritten from scratch. Hut 8.5 12:28, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first sentence is an unattributed direct quote of the first reference. The rest of the article seems to be assembled from random unrelated snippets in the literature (WP:SYNTH). Also, this is a pattern with User:Marshallsumter's edits. See, for instance, this ANI thread. This suggests deleting with prejudice. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:12, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per previous !votes. It's just a tangle of unrelated snippets. If the subject were actually notable (which I doubt) we'd have to start the article from scratch anyway. bobrayner (talk) 15:56, 10 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.