Hyperconnectivity: Neologistic expanded WP:DICTDEF .  Fails WP:GNG .  - UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Note:  This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Social science , Technology ,  and Canada .  UtherSRG (talk) 13:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete : article started 15 years ago so it's not even a neologism anymore, just a "logism" and an old article.  Already exists in Wiktionary: wikt:hyperconnectivity , a better place for it, regardless of notability.  -- A. B. ( talk • contribs • global count ) 18:09, 7 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep : The sources are valid, the topic exists, and the article is neither misleading nor damaging.  It's even interesting and (within its field) passes notability with cites from 2001 to 2012 and a number of years between.  There is no real reason to delete it.  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 18:47, 9 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  16:40, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Delete: Inclined to agree that Wikitonary is likely the better place for this.  If the phrase were much more notable it may carve out an exception, but aside from the original paper coining the term it seems to be only used in passing - and it seems that many uses of "Hyperconnected" (and it's variations) are used somewhat independently of any definition set by the individuals mentioned in this page.  While there are several citations, most of them seem to be showing evidence of things things like internet-connected refrigerators rather than conferring notability to this phrase.  A MINOTAUR ( talk ) 17:34, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep - this subject is more than just a word to be listed in a dictionary.  There are nearly 23k results on Google Scholar and 11k+ on ProQuest.  Think we should be able to find more than enough references to support this article.  - Indefensible ( talk ) 19:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Then if you have references, post them up per best practice WP:THREE instead of stating they're might be stuff, which is virtually useless.  Search quanity result are ignored by admin's as you cant drawn any conclusions from them.  scope_creep Talk 10:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] If Roy's WP:THREE worked , we wouldn't be having this conversation.  There are fifteen high-quality sources already cited -- I'd pick Quan-Haase/Wellman (2006) to establish the concept, BBC (2007) to show expanse of relevence, and Spitzer, et al (2004) to show wider use and its critical use in neurophysiology.  Indefensible 's legitimate point (that there is a lot more out there in addition to the existing sources) simply shows that the article has a lot of room to grow.  It's no longer official policy, but wasn't that the whole point of the debate back in 2001 when Larry & Jimbo wrote Rules to Consider point two?  Cheers, Last1in ( talk ) 11:37, 18 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Leaning keep , as a reasonable broad concept article.  BD2412 T 03:53, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.  Please add new comments below this notice.  Thanks, L iz Read!  Talk!  19:26, 21 August 2023 (UTC) [ reply ] Keep A quick WP:BEFORE search shows multiple reliable secondary sources available that would support a broad concept article.  In neuroscience and neurology, there are reviews such as Injured Brains and Adaptive Networks: The Benefits and Costs of Hyperconnectivity and The rises and falls of disconnection syndromes that cover the concept in some depth.  In human computer interaction, there is chapter 1 of the book Hyperconnectivity and the review From facilitating interactivity to managing hyperconnectivity: 50 years of human–computer studies .  The article has some problems; there is some synthesis.  But given sources like those above and those pointed out by Last1in, a reasonable broad-concept article could be written summarizing the concept in each of these two different fields.  A notable concept in multiple fields and and article with surmountable problems suggests a keep.  -- {{u| Mark viking }} { Talk } 10:56, 24 August 2023 (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.

Discussion outcome: no consensus