Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social centered 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 delete. One (talk) 10:35, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Social centered design

Non-notable concept. Sources are nearly useless. One is merely a blog entry and therefore not a reliable source; I have a feeling it's by the author of this article and therefore promoting his concept. The other two (also blog entries, it appears) don't even mention the phrase at all, as best as I can find. This article looks to be promotional in nature, and a Google search on the term (without quotation marks) turns up only the first blog, all other returns do not mention this as a complete phrase. This would appear to be a neologism. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 16:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Salih (talk) 16:28, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's full of the corporate 'action words' style writing seen in upperclassmen collegiate writings about 'instituting a new actualization of the realization process vis-a-vis the motivation of the subgroups to yield a new paradigm' shit. Sink it. Nom is right, it's either self-promotional or an experiment into how much bullshit wording can be crammed into a thimble. ThuranX (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep--Major cleanup is needed, but a notable academic concept: International Encyclopedia of Ergonomics, Google books and Google Scholar --Jmundo (talk) 17:15, 25 December 2008 (UTC)--Jmundo (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as it's only borderline WP:Complete Bollocks. Eddie.willers (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--Just gave the article a cleanup and provided sources. --Jmundo (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question: In the one link provided, it seems to be about "human-centered design" instead of "social-centered design." Are those terms the same? The link provided doesn't appear to mention social centered design, at least not that I can find. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 15:14, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I eliminated the source to clear any confusion. --Jmundo (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have no idea what it's even about; am inclined to agree with ThuranX that it's just a bunch of buzzwords thrown together. I assume it's about designing the interfaces for stuff like facebook, but that's really not clear in the article. —Politizer ^talk/_contribs 20:36, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to user centered design if the current article is right. Scaldi (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I went to post a comment on Scaldi's talk page and found he's been blocked for sockpuppetry. We might like to discount his comment. - Mgm|^(talk) 17:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I think that's part of the problem — no one really knows for sure if it's right or just buzzwords. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 02:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that academic references are available to establish notability of the subject. The problem with the buzzwords can be deal with editing. --Jmundo (talk) 04:23, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning the phrase in a couple of references is not enough to establish the notability. Salih (talk) 06:04, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3 pages in the above academic reference goes beyond "mentioning the phrase"--Jmundo (talk) 17:52, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:11, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Contrary to Jmundo's assertions, the phrase "social centered design" (itself a misquote of the phrase in the book he/she references) has no currency whatsoever in academia, as far as I can tell. A comprehensive research database search, for example, gives 1022 hits for "user centered design" and... zero for either "social centered design" or "socially centered design." So, neologism, at best. Jlg4104 (talk) 04:48, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*And to clarify, since I'm anticipating Jmundo may still object-- Academic and technical writers group words together in technical-sounding combinations all the time, in a process called "nominalization," i.e., making a big multi-word noun that shrinks an otherwise longer phrase. I used Academic Search Complete with all databases turned on, and as I said, nothing came up, which means that despite the happenstance appearance of the phrase in a couple academic sources, it's not (yet) part of any discipline's conceptual vocabulary. Jlg4104 (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with user centered design. Scaldi might be a sock, but he still has the right idea. I see no differences between the two terms. Bsimmons666 (talk) ^Friend? 17:24, 30 December 2008 (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.