Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aesthetonomics

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. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 13:11, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aesthetonomics

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODed as a non notable neologism ( a staggeringly small number of hits on Google): PROD removed with a rationale I don't quite understand, but part of it appears to be a wish to promote the term. It also says something about explaining the term, but I really don't think the existing article coherently explains anything, quite the contrary. TheLongTone (talk) 15:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NEO. There is absolutely no published work in this apparently scientific field except that published by the designer who coined the term. Also can't make sense of what it's trying to describe. Is this an economic concept or is it fashion design? Nobody seems to know. Ivanvector (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Fashion and design have an impact on economics. It would be hard to prove this term notable. Maybe an article about Linda Rampell would be notable enough.Jonpatterns (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that an article on Linda Rampell would provide notability. Looking for sources for an article now. Henrik.callerstrand (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- An article on Linda Rampell would be a valid merge target, maybe, but would be a long way from conferring notability by association. Ivanvector (talk) 19:08, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. and Ivanvector. WP:NEO a neologism without following. --Bejnar (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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.