Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Training hypothesis (2nd nomination)

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. Courcelles 23:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Training hypothesis

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

The article is a neologism not in usage in in the field aprock (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The term is introduced and defined in the Gottfredson source: "Both reflect what might be termed the training hypothesis, which is that, with sufficient instruction, low-aptitude individuals can be trained to perform as well as high-aptitude individuals." (see pg 86 of [1]) and is only used once after it is introduced. Other sources listed use the different term "on-the-job training hypothesis". Searching for the term "training hypothesis" on the web yields many links to the wikipedia page or mirrors thereof. On google scholar the search yields links to the variant "on-the-job training hypothesis". There appear to be no secondary sources giving either variant any notability. Judging from the history, the topic is utterly moribund with no edits for three years and no other articles linking to it. aprock (talk) 20:42, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 05:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. — Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 14:30, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or selective merge with practice (learning method). I'm not seeing the difference. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:18, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominator. aprock (talk) 15:41, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:59, 18 September 2011 (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.