Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transition design

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. Sandstein 09:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transition design

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

This jargon-filled over-wordy formulation of a rather common idea seems to be based on one person's views, without any evidence of general acceptance. DGG ( talk ) 05:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 08:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as largely uncited spam. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:04, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:12, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. The contents read like mushy nonsense to me, but then so do a lot of well-documented post-modern topics, and they are notable, so that's not a good criterion. As far as this one goes, it seems to involve at least a small group of a half-dozen to a dozen of academics, starting in 1999, and at least four universities. I don't see how the statement that it is "one person's views" can possibly hold. Personal value-judgements aside, it seems prudent to keep the article and to tag and hopefully improve it, rather than to delete it. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 13:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there is a fair amount online, but - reviewing the materials - everything seems to point back to this being a neologism pushed by one professor.--Rpclod (talk) 14:11, 19 November 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.