Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Participant evolution (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. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:53, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Participant evolution

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

Barely-referenced neologism which even the cited sources note is barely used. No evidence of currency. Does not meet standards of WP:NEO. What sources I see in Google are occasional mentions in older transhumanist publications. Previous AFD was a "keep" in 2005, but I'm reasonably sure it doesn't measure up to 2016 standards. David Gerard (talk) 12:06, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:08, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Sci-fi neologism. No apparent significant use in independent sources. Joe Roe (talk) 12:36, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's not a complete neologism, as the term has been around for at least 20 years. A search in GBooks and GScholar showed only relatively brief mentions, not enough depth to support notability per WP:GNG for an article. I would not be opposed to say, a brief mention in Human enhancement, but as a topic in transhumanism it doesn't seem independently notable. --Mark viking (talk) 18:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – This seems to be a term nearly identical in meaning to Directed evolution (transhumanism), but this one never got much traction. —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:58, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while I couldn't find any news reports on it there are plenty of books discussing the concept: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. It is clearly notable enough. (The article needs some improvement though.) --Fixuture (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to !vote delete, but in light of the links Fixture provided above, I say we Stub it into a soft redirect to Eugenics, Cybernetics, Human enhancement and Directed evolution (transhumanism) because this is just a term to describe one or more of those (the article doesn't make it clear which; I suspect it just depends on the context). MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 20:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could be a wiktionary entry. 186.29.209.135 (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- I created the Wiktionary entry. See wikt:participant evolution. Daniel Carrero (talk) 15:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable neologism. Guy (Help!) 10:05, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - In light of the book sources provided by Fixuture above, per WP:NEXIST. Currently, this is a stub, but the sources seem likely to go into enough depth to expand the article in the future. Even if we aren't, I would prefer a short stub like we have that includes a list of "See also" links to the items MjolnirPants suggested for a possible soft redirect. Kindof like a disambiguation page, except not disambiguation, but more "this is a minor concept in these larger topics". Fieari (talk) 02:57, 15 September 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.