Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Age of Interruption

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 redirect to Continuous partial attention. Consensus is clearly the article needs to go, but the delete camp has not explicitly denied that any content could be reused; thus redirecting to allow for stuff to be taken from the page history in case any of it can be salvaged. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:51, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Age of Interruption[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This fails WP:GNG - it is a term used in an opinion article, and one academic paper. PeterTheFourth (talk) 08:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 08:37, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Continuous partial attention. Schazjmd (talk) 00:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NEO "To support an article about a particular term or concept, we must cite what reliable secondary sources say about the term or concept, not just sources that use the term ." is the standard that needs to be met.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:45, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 13:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG. Has not been adopted in popular culture ...and the use of this term is minimal to non-existent. Lubbad85 (☎) 21:09, 27 May 2019 (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.