Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technological momentum


 * 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. Eluchil404 00:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Technological momentum
AfDs for this article: 
 * – (View AfD) (View log)

A neologism, some guy promoting a book of the same title. SolidPlaid 04:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Very weak keep. The article is three years old but doesn't have any secondary sources. I think that's the greatest weakness of the article. If reliable sources can be located, I recommend keeping the article. I don't think it's so bad as to need deleted—if I thought it was advertising, I'd have speedy deleted it—but I can't strongly endorse keeping the article. Subject appears notable (scholarly) but needs sources to verify it. —C.Fred (talk) 04:53, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although in agreement about secondary sources, not quite sure if its a new neologism ,however would like to see the article expaded. --Hu12 09:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as proposed by SolidPlaid. Like the debate regarding the deletion of socionomics, this is another neogolism based on a combination of economics and sociology, but at least the author had the good sense not to call it something like Technomics or Technomancy. I would also argue against merging the content of this article with Thomas P. Hughes, since this article is self referencing, unless book from which the content derives can be demonstrated as being notable. --Gavin Collins 09:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsalvageable Original Research. &mdash;gorgan_almighty 13:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as clearly failing the criteria of WP:NEO. One published work by the creator of the term is not sufficient independent coverage and use. VanTucky  (talk) 16:44, 24 August 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.