Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specifically human basic need

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. Tim Song (talk) 04:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically human basic need

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

This page was already previously deleted. To my astonishment, speedy was declined this time. There is no indication why or how the topic is important/notable, or even how the title is specifically related to the text. If there is anything worth saving in this article, it should be in the short Laszlo Garai article. There's no reason to keep this around as a stub or redirect. The page should be deleted. — Timneu22 · talk 12:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with fire, the title sounds like basic human needs but the content, in as much as I can make head or tail of it after the user has made several deleted attempts at this article, is about one person's esoteric definition of the term "Specifically human basic need".

According to a hypothesis of Laszlo Garai, a paradoxical need for a needfree activity is specific for humans and basic for their other needs. The structure of the hypothesized need is isomorphic with that of the work considered as a "specifically human basic activity" and defined as that of arranging in one and the same structure ends and means[1]. The hypothesis is based on the activity theory of Alexei Leontiev[2].
— Article content as of 14:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that the text is basically incomprehensible, Google finds "Specifically+human+basic+need"&safe=off&start=60&sa=N 25 unique hits, many of which seem to track back to Wikipedia. It does not look to me as if it even merits a redirect. The user seems to be handling issues with the content by the expedient of ignoring them. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Term does appear in one journal article on Google Scholar, but I don't think the term itself is sufficiently notable for a redirect or article (nor distinct enough from similar terms by other psychologists). IronGargoyle (talk) 14:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is either patent nonsense or someone's idiosyncratic jargon that conveys no information in the absence of needed context. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sign of notability (and no speedy criteria apply). Hairhorn (talk) 18:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: "Szalagloria" (the editor who created the article) is an anagram of "Laszlo Garai". -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:53, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. That might explain why all this account ever does, on multiple language Wikipedias, is promote the work of Laszlo Garai. Probably the same individual as Garai (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) then. Guess who created the article on Laszlo Garai? Guy (Help!) 08:11, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone going to report this self-promo stuff? — Timneu22 · talk 10:12, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had already left a COI notice on Szalagloria's talk page. Szalagloria sort of shrugged it off, but on the other hand, he has not since edited the article(s) in question. The Garai account has not made any edits in over three years, but I just left a COI notice for that account, as well. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 15:00, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

merge with the article on him. I think he is probably notable, but that article could be nominated for AfD if in doubt. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 3 June 2010 (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.