Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Training hypothesis
- 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 keep. Claim of reliable sources having been obtained remain uncontested. El_C 19:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Training hypothesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Non notable neologism. As far as I can tell it is used once in paper by a notable person, no evidence that it was ever used again. Daniel J. Leivick 17:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Bearian 20:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep dozens of specific references in titles from even just Google Scholar, some as "on the job training hypothesis, which should be used as a redirect. Even the inadequate article refers to three different authors. A notable concept in the theory of intelligence. why judge a concept non-notable or a neologism in unfamiliar fields without at least checking google?. (Agreed--there is no direct way of doing a specific search for this is google). I've added some of the refs. DGG (talk) 21:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kurykh 05:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I'm unconvinced this is an important approach but the article is now reasonably well-referenced. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per DGG, and Google Scholar search. Giggy UCP 08:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. References have been sought and found, and for once in a lifetime we have a human resources or business management article written in a reasonable approximation of plain English. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:50, 25 July 2007 (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.