Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Circadian advantage

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 no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 04:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Circadian advantage

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

This article describes a rarely used term, and basically includes nothing that isn't described in circadian rhythm and jet lag (both much more common terms). The author of the article, by the way, is the scientist who claims to have coined the term, User:Wcwinter (Dr. W. Christopher Winter). bender235 (talk) 21:18, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:42, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to
talk) 14:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Doesn't matter if it is rare, references establish it is notable. No indication of a
WP:COI problem. Topic is not discussed in Circadian rhythm or Jet lag. Could be merged into Circadian rhythm and/or Jet lag but it is not obvious how to do that or how that would improve things. Best to keep it as it is. --Kvng (talk) 22:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Don't you think it should be merged with Jet lag, because it basically describes an effect that results from jet lag. --bender235 (talk) 06:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's an option, after having read the two articles, not one that I would strongly support but, it is something you are welcome to explore

WP:BOLDly or on the talk pages of the affected articles. --Kvng (talk) 01:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete I haven't yet dug into the references to see if they actually use this term, vs. being one person's new name for something that already has other names or coverage. Has enough real content to be a separate article, and wp:notability of it by that name is a possibility. It would probably be better as a section in circadian rhythm or jet lag. North8000 (talk) 00:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Atmoz. Sp33dyphil ^{"Ad astra"} 08:14, 25 August 2011 (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.