Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relevance realization

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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:03, 26 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance realization

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

Non-notable theory of meaning which has a very small footprint in the literature. I don't think the term is entirely newly coined, but the couple of really solid hits are to papers by John Vervaeke (see above), and the principal hit [1] was only published last year. Maybe later. Mangoe (talk) 15:00, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how notability of a theory is determined? I just discovered the pages on relevance and relevance theory and suggest merging this article with those instead of outright deletion. I can also do a more thorough account of the discourse which spans over a decade and other researchers (like Jerry Fodor) a bit later. I'm new so I don't know if I can just go ahead and propose a merger or...? Thanks! --RT Wolf (talk) 18:32, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Relevance realization" just seems to be John Vervaeke's name for an existing idea/theory. --RT Wolf (talk) 18:33, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Little more than minimally sourced babble. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:58, 16 April 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Thoughts on merger with relevance in teh cog sci section and relevance theory? RT Wolf (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing here worth merging, is there? If you feel there is, feel free to add it to that article and see how it fares there. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Do not merge: Sources fall far short of the mark for establishing notability. Very little about this in the literature. The only solid source was published lasrt year, and still hasn't generated enough response so that we can assign it any weight. Too little to even justify a merge. I couldn't find anything that was sourced and worth saving. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 09:20, 19 April 2013 (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.