Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conveyed concept

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conveyed concept

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

This article fails WP:DEL7 & WP:DEL8, and seems to have extensively mis-cited the sources provided in the references. See the TP for the efforts of an anon user to check and substantiate the references (though I do not share their belief this was an intentional hoax.) Also seems to breach WP:NOTNEO. Having hunted around, few sources seem to use the phrase at all, and no sources treat the term as the subject of verifiable coverage Landscape repton (talk) 13:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I initially removed the CSD as a hoax, because it didn't appear to be a blatant hoax. The IP's work however does confirm my suspicions that this is a neologism at best, and possibly a contrived term. RickinBaltimore (talk) 13:30, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The references I looked at all seem to be fictitious. Hoax or not this article is nonsense. Lmbro (talk) 20:05, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Probably hoax. Hopefully this will be deleted soon. Jliboe (talk) 13:05, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 10 year Hoax? Really?? It's been a minute give me some time to correct some links they go away after a while. I get over 2,000 hits on conveyed concept in quotes; I bet a number of them can used as sources. I'm having issues staying logged in here. I'm starting to think the accusation of the article being a hoax has somehow blocked my account. Sad how one voice, for whatever motivation, can cause another to have their account blocked with nothing more than an opinion. 68.170.224.31 (talk) 17:39, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is complete nonsense. The number of hits is useful but not sufficient, e.g. "read book" (in quotes) gets 900,000; so what of it? Vikom (talk) 17:22, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've made significant repair to source links that time had ravaged, more can be done but do what you will.Thedosmann (talk) 14:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What is the notability criteria for phrases? This is an article explaining the meaning of a phrase. There could be an article about "moved rock" explaining what it means for a rock to be moved. I am asking the question because I don't know the answer.--Truthtests (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom and above delete !votes. This appears to be a case of WP:NOTESSAY. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:00, 21 July 2017 (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.