Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Symphonic Thinking


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:10, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Symphonic Thinking

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neologism. Aside from cleanup issues, which i have not yet attempted, I could not find sufficient references to the phrase. (gsearch is 700 not 7000). some use does exist, but its coinage in this manner is about 12 years old. previous use of the phrase, of course, was in reference to actual symphony composition. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 17:53, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:51, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Not a single reference in the PsycINFO article database. Google Scholar returns only the one article mentioned, which is an unpublished white-paper. It seems like it is a term coined by author Dan Pink that never received widespread usage. Seems like a "cutesy" expression to refer to a broader point that Pink was trying to make, rather than one with any academic usage behind it. Osubuckeyeguy (talk) 16:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 21:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bryce  ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 04:58, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

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


 * Relisting comment: Relist for the last time. If still nobody responds then this article should be deleted per WP:PROD thinking.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 16:54, 14 February 2012 (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.