Talk:research gap

RFD discussion: December 2017–April 2018
Not really idiomatic, in my experience, just a gap in the research that's been done. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 01:18, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Keep - the concept is totally essential to academic research and thus highly salient, and is refined/scoped in the way the definition is written - which is a bit clunky, so I will work on it.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 02:22, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. One can say "gap in the research", "gap in the field", "gap in the literature", etc. ---&#62; Tooironic (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

To me "research gap" seems to be sum of parts (SOP). -84.161.6.246 04:17, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
 * @Sonofcawdrey: Your argument seems to be about the concept, but should be about the term. That the concept is important doesn't mean that the term is (from a lexicographical point of view).


 * Yes, but the term in question is the general term for the concept (e'en though there are other ways of expressing it), and the concept is more than SoP in that it is not just any gap in research, but one of enough significance to warrant research.- Sonofcawdrey (talk) 04:44, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Delete. Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk) 11:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Delete. I'm sympathetic to Sonofcawdrey's argument, but I don't think a matter of degree is enough in this case to warrant this as a separate lexical entity. --SanctMinimalicen (talk) 02:11, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Delete per proponent. --Per utramque cavernam (talk) 11:32, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Delete. --WikiTiki89 12:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
 * RFD failed. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 20:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)