Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cellblockistry

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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cellblockistry

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Cellblockistry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The is a neologism coined last year by the author VB Shidham whose publications are cited as the first two sources. None of the other sources mention the term. Fails WP:GNG, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. --Pontificalibus 06:32, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete In addition to probably failing GNG as per nom, this appears to be a self-promo and/or attempt to establish a new term/concept and give it legitimacy by way of a WP article. Some of the 'argumentation' is also essay-like at best, nonsensical at worst. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism without uptake. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A neologism that is not wiki-notable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:40, 11 May 2020 (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.