Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inverted synergy

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 04:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Inverted synergy

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

Low quality personal essay that likely fails WP:NOT as primarily the work of a single author. Likely self-promotion and possibly fails WP:GNG as well. See discussion at the help desk for discussion on this and a related group of articles. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 15:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt given the now-blocked creator's modus operandi. Self-referential nonsense ("Each meaning made borrows from and confirms or revises one’s global meaning (the aggregation of meanings previously assigned), consolidating or recalibrating the global cognitive-emotional frame from which new meanings are made") in impenetrable jargon that if anything looks like a hoax from http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/ which generates a new "article" every time it is refreshed. No evidence this could be written from any reliable secondary source. μηδείς (talk) 01:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I entirely agree. This is awful. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not to jump on a bandwagon or anything, but this page is nothing but jargon and uncheckable references. A quick check online showed up negative that this even exists outside of imaginative names for pictures and class projects. Supernerd11 :D Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 04:47, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete term not gained any notability nor traction - has not appeared in any secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:20, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only two hits on google books; few cites in reliable journals, overall does not suggest any significant notability for the term and doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG. Self-referential nonsesnse seems harsh, but we won't loose much if we delete this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 18 February 2014 (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.