Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cultured resonance

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. SmartSE (talk) 15:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cultured resonance[edit]

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

This appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term "cultured resonance", contrary to WP:NOTNEO and/or to promote one author's view/usage of the term, contrary to WP:NOTPROMOTION. This article is part of a set of articles discussed at the Help Desk. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indications that this term is notable. Only two sources cited, both the work of one author. The current article text says that the term was first used in 2010. Google searches return only the works of this author, and completely unrelated hits, largely describing a tone of voice. This is a non-notable neologism at best, and as per WP:NOT does not belong here, at worst it is attempted promotion. I agree with Jreferee above.

Although I am in favor of Delete per Jreferee's reasoning, I would suggest that Kuzan's credentials matter far less than the credentials of the publishers of the materials. I'm not familiar with the reputation of the journals or publishers, though. 0x0077BE [^talk/_contrib] 16:35, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Note that the author is a 'session lecturer' at Laurentian University.[1]. I 'think' he is still a PhD candidate. Dougweller (talk) 14:20, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. The phrase gives a few Google Book hits, but nothing major. From the article it doesn't appear that the term has gained any significant usage; thus a failure of WP:GNG seems the case here. Ping me if better sources are presented. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:30, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Capitalismojo (talk) 02:48, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination and Jreferee's comments above. Tapped-out (talk) 03:32, 15 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete term not gained any notability nor traction - has not appeared in any secondary sources. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:19, 15 February 2014 (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.