Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interlock research


 * 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. Nakon 02:36, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Interlock research

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

fails WP:GNG, another essay —Мандичка YO 😜 15:07, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete There's lots of research into interlocks in specific fields, but this general term simply isn't notable as defined. Colapeninsula (talk) 17:21, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Esquivalience t 01:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete and leave orbit: Of course the term "interlock diagram" is meaningful, because it is a common compound noun. Wherever there is an interlock (inside an automobile ignition system or in a docking hatch in outer space or simply between parts of a transmission), there will be an "interlock diagram" devised in the manufacture of the interlock. However, it isn't possible to write an article on "the" interlock diagram. Instead, there is a place to define "interlock" and "interlock diagram" at Wiktionary. Finally, the body of this article promulgates a particular redefinition of this common compound noun into a piece of jargon for a small minority's political research. As far as I can tell, they're working from a post-Hegelian "constellation of power is part of the ideological state apparatus" camp. We have to delete because the perfect article for this term would be a definition, and the article contents and concepts are jargon from a small group of people in academia who have not achieved notability for their peculiar vocabulary yet. Hithladaeus (talk) 17:31, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete although moving to the book's article where is mentioned would be good also, Books was the only one to find results and not much looks significant. SwisterTwister   talk  05:26, 27 May 2015 (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.