Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thin slicing


 * 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. – Avi 04:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thin slicing
User:Dlyons493 prod'd this article, but I don't agree. Reason for prod given as: Non-notable concept with no currency outside a single book.


 * Keep, hard to estimate usage with Google. Well known author lends weight to the term, regardless of spread of usage. —Pengo talk · contribs 23:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Neutral I don't really understand what this articles means, but that doesn't mean its nonsense, for the person who wrote the article should. Massive Cleanup, if not deleted. Kitia 00:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge to Blink (book), Gladwell comes up with a lot of neologisms and I'm against having articles for all of them. Recury 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete The following search attempts to find how whether this term has an existence independent of its creator %22Thin slicing%22 -Gladwell -Blink&btnG=Search - it shows 85Ghits, none significant. Seems to me to be a nn neologism.    Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  02:06, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge is fine by me (although I'd prefer delete). No longer think merge is appropriate given info from Pim below. If the article is kept the original usage of the term should be added.   Dl yo ns 493   Ta lk  08:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * In the form "thin slices", this term seems commonly used in psychology and long predates Gladwell. The origin appears to be: Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictors of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111(2), 256-274. Pim 02:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge and Redirect to Blink_(book), the book which discusses this concept. This neologism does not need its own article. -- Wine Guy  Talk  06:58, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Not worth a redirect. Every catchphrase can not have its own page. Daviegold 15:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. I would usually have voted merge on something like this but this is such a minimal part of this book and the concept is a neologism outside of that. Ifnord 16:34, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Thin slice and include more information on the origins and scope of the psychological term which predates Gladwell. MarkBuckles 18:06, 30 July 2006 (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.