Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xenognosticism

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. Cirt (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Xenognosticism

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

Non-notable neologism with zero Google hits. The author (User:Xenognostic) contested my PROD with the claim, "This page contains directly sourced Wikipedia material, along with the definition of a previously undefined conjunction." Glenfarclas (talk) 06:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; seems to be the author's own synthesis of two existing concepts. If this really "is backed by scientific evidence relating to the study of quantum mechanics", I would expect some reliable sources indicating such. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:NEO. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 08:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If the conjunction of the terms is previously undefined, then there won't be sources that document it, and it should be deleted - for now. There is always the possibility that the term will gain traction and coverage, and if so an article becomes appropriate. But we're not there yet. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 14:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable neologism, and exactly none of it is sourced. Hairhorn (talk) 00:11, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable neologism. Entry appears to be an attempt to use Wikipedia to introduce a linguistic innovation. —SlamDiego_←T 05:16, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Also very unsoured, I suspect this is OR of a very extream kind.Slatersteven (talk) 17:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a related technical term but this usage is OR. Jojalozzo (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Stinks of OR besides being unsourced and a neo. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:01, 31 January 2010 (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.