Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gen inertia

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. J04n(talk page) 17:20, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gen inertia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

WP:NEOLOGISM KDS4444 (talk) 09:20, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:57, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - a concept coined and used by one or two researchers, and an article largely consisting of original research. There is quite a bit of SPA activity in the article, too - not a reason to delete it, of course, but worth keeping an eye on. --bonadea contributions talk 17:37, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Yes, neologism, sourced to articles form 2016, with no showing of general uptake. May be suitable for an article at some future time. LaMona (talk) 00:01, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - neologism cannot be the sole criteria for deletion unless if it has any copyright issues, since there are as many terms that could easily be categorized under 'neologism'. Besides, not being an "archaic" word doesn't render a new concept void. Therefore, it requires more time to invalidate a conceptual term derived from other established idea(s) even though if it is not an archaic word. Agree with LaMona, that it may be suitable in future time.

M kench (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2016 (UTC)— M kench (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Indeed, there are many new terms being coined in academic research, which is why Wikipedia does not include articles about concepts that are not well-established. Please read this information, and note that "may be suitable in [the] future" is in fact an argument in favour of deleting; if and when it becomes generally used there could be an article about it, but not before. --bonadea contributions talk 06:55, 9 August 2016 (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.