Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Building block theory


 * 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.  Nish kid 64  01:21, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Building block theory


Development neologism, no verification of origin or relevance, delete --Peta 02:45, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete - no attempt to establish notability through verifiable sourcs. The author of the webpage uses this term, this is no indication that the subjects of the article use it. Shaundakulbara 03:14, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Bare minimum requirement for notability is multiple published sources. A catchy phrase dropped in a single paper can't become the subject of a Wikipedia article unless there's evidence it's been picked up and circulated elsewhere. See WP:NEO --Shirahadasha 05:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. -- M P er el ( talk 09:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, it's an intriguing notion. Give the editor or some editors a chance to flesh it out. It's a term that comes up in academia frequently.Caliwiki123 20:41, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I've never encountered this term even though I'm earning an MA in international studies and development. However, this doesn't necessarily mean its not a valid concept so I did a quick search.  At first glance the term seems quite common when googled, however virtually all the links that come up apply to the "Building Block Theory" of genetics, the "Building Block Theory" of language and a Building Block Theory of psychology.  I, however, did not find anything referring to a Building Block Theory in the areas of international development or nation building, which is what this article discusses.  The only 'source' I found was the one cited in the article.  The source is a brief paper by the UN, however it doesn't explicity refer to this theory.  It does mention the concept of "building blocks" as a relatively new and novel policy approach and, at one point, menionts "Building Block" theory, with the quotations around 'building block,' but not theory, which implies that it was a neologism coined to encompass this new way of thinking.  However, I would wager that this neologism never caught on seeing as there are no other sources.  I, of course, may be wrong but unless someone can provide proper sources this really needs to go. --The Way 09:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.