Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Change

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 of the nomination was delete ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:58, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fundamental Change and Relevance Gap

Follow on from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fundamental Surprise. Author contributes only to these articles, only 414 unique for "Relevance Gap", difficult to meaningfully google a phrase as generic as "Fundamental Change" but I am finding nothing that indicates this concept is anything other that an (old) neologism. Delete unless evidence that these phrases in this context are commonly used.
brenneman ^{L} 00:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nn neologusm. As with the last debate a redirect to Cognitive dissonance may be appropriate. Artw 00:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete nn neologusm. Also either original thought or perhaps copyvio from [1]. (Saddly I don't speak Hebrew) --IslaySolomon 00:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. Also note that a search of "relevance+gap"+lanir (Lanir being the author of the cited paper) gets 0 google hits. — ዮም (Yom) | contribs • Talk • E 02:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In B-school we used to call this buzzword whoring. ~ trialsanderrors
• Delete for buzzword whoring (Fails WP:NEO, rather). --Coredesat talk. o.o;; 03:37, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. User has also contributed to the similarly-minded:

Situational Surprise and

Jointness.

All these articles cite the same cache of "white paper" material by one author, that makes me suspect original research. --DaveG12345 04:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I prodded them both. ~ trialsanderrors 07:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep fundamental change, Delete all others, the first/second person writing is a bit off, but "fundamental change" is a valid concept and the article explains it, and the article is rescueable. The others are crud. An "old neologism" that has caught on is not a neologism.—Pengo 09:14, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Here's an article by someone with a bit more clout but I still want to see that FC is a clearly defined term rather than just a waffly concept invoked by different people to mean different things. ~ trialsanderrors 17:49, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - neogilism. --Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 15:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Neologism -- Alias Flood 21:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

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.