Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human fit

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. v/r - T P 17:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Human fit[edit]

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

As I was browsing, I noticed that this article's lead only describes the topic indirectly, without telling what the thing is. So I tried to look it up, and couldn't find it online anywhere. It appears to be a neologism and original research. None of the citations given pertain to the topic "human fit", rather to aspects of the concept. Also, the article does not establish the notability of the topic. Please take a look around and correct me if I'm mistaken. Thank you. Sincerely, The Transhumanist 04:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete based on current content. The article does not describe its topic clearly. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Gobbledegook, almost speedyable as 'nonsense' Ohconfucius ^¡digame! 09:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. — —Tom Morris (talk) 11:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see that the two words are used fairly regularly, but that does not mean we must have an article with the title. As best I can tell, the article is basically about "cohesion in human relationships" which is an encyclopedic topic I suppose--but already covered by articles such as Interpersonal compatibility and Organizational culture. Qrsdogg (talk) 22:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there's a comment in the article page that a Keep decision made on 28 June, but I can't see in the history who made that decision, and why. So...I'm confused by that comment - can anyone help by explaining the comment and/or pasting that KEEP decision into this page? The content of the article could be kept as it provides a single placeholder for several related terms which DO have notability - e.g., Organisational Fit - the page also has a useful coherent collection of navigation links in this area. So it could be kept at least until the content and references can be integrated into the articles mentioned - Interpersonal compatibility, Organizational culture etc - and the coherent set of links retained, perhaps partly in disambiguation page(s)? -- any editors who could contribute to this work would be more productive for the encyclopedia than a straight deletion. Just a thought Mediation4u (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

Comment: Your concerns do not address WP:N or WP:NEO. Is "human fit" a real term? Are there sources out there (books, articles) specifically about "human fit"? I couldn't find any, could you? The notability guideline is very clear:

On Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic can have its own article. Information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article.

So far, nobody has provided reliable third party sources (or even first or second party sources) on "human fit". I couldn't find any dictionary entries out there, no news articles about this topic, no textbooks defining the term, nothing. In order to allow this title and its accompanying page to continue, someone needs to verify that the title of this article has been published out there somewhere. WP:VER states:

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true.

To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question, but in practice you do not need to attribute everything. This policy requires that all quotations and anything challenged or likely to be challenged be attributed in the form of an inline citation that directly supports the material.

I challenge the title of this article. If you can establish per WP:BURDEN that this term is notable and is not a neologism, I'll withdraw the nomination. According to WP:NEO:

Articles on neologisms are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. As Wiktionary's inclusion criteria differ from Wikipedia's, that project may cover neologisms that Wikipedia cannot accept. You may wish to contribute an entry for the neologism to Wiktionary instead.

I look forward to your reply. The Transhumanist 20:21, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have done much work on tracing the statement, so I defer to your expert opinion on it being insufficiently notable as an article in its own right. Especially as google agrees with you - no matches here -> "Human fit" in-book-title search.

By the same measure, "Organisational fit" is a notable term.

Where would you stand on my suggestion of a little effort on integrating some of the content into other articles?

As one example, I don't see a Wikipedia article on "Organisational fit", yet it is a notable term. Content on such terms could appear in other, related, articles without needing articles of their own. Mediation4u (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[reply]

Does anyone think there is anything worth salvaging? I would drop the external links as they don't pass the neologism test, as clarified above. Mediation4u (talk) 09:55, 12 July 2011 (UTC) ^{editing is fun}[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.