Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emotionally Durable Design

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 merge to Sustainable design. ‑Scottywong | communicate _ 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Emotionally Durable Design

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

There is a question as to whether this neologism warrants an article; perhaps a merge to the academic's article is more appropriate? Ckatz^chat _spy 17:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sustainable design. The article is a bit of a mess right now, but there does seem to be some coverage of the term in the literature that is independent of Dr. Chapman. It looks like emotionally durable design is a method of achieving sustainable design; I'm not sure there's enough out there to warrant a separate article. 98.245.42.127 (talk) 06:11, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rehash the article. I think it is notable enough and there is sufficient material to justify its own article. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 20:25, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - its an important topic and already well written. Deleted or not, a subsection in Sustainable Design should be created for this topic, however I think its also deserving of its own article. Separate from the primary academic associated it with, there are several design practitioners working with these principles, albiet with some overlap to emotional design.+|||||||||||||||||||||||||+ (talk) 11:21, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and merge with sustainable design. This looks to be almost entirely one person's pet theory, which might be worthwhile as a subsection of the greater concept, but reads like a promotional piece on its own. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:34, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
merge as suggested. if someone without COI wants to expand this is to a not promotional article, they can do so, if there are enough third part refs--which at the moment seems doubtful. Academics and businessmen and advertisers are always look for clever renames of common concepts, but that they are usually not separately notable, very few ever make substantial impact. DGG ( talk ) 05:24, 17 April 2012 (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.