- 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 of the debate was delete. Sango123 17:18, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed new scientific term; both a protologism (since term is being proposed in the article itself) and original research. NawlinWiki 21:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, fails WP:NEO, WP:NOR. --Coredesat 21:33, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rewrite or merge with Connectome] - Although it is a relatively new term (a year or so), it does appear to have merit and is growing in use in several publications; however, the article does not read as if it is actually written from secondary sources. Failing that, *delete. אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 22:26, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Neo. Concept does not seem to have spread much. About 90 unique Ghits for either version of the word. Fan1967 22:47, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, WP:NOT for your new theories and made-up words. Deizio talk 01:58, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as per above. Sheesh! ---CH 10:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. Remarkable article in that it mentions its subject only with the final word. --DaveG12345 16:42, 26 June 2006 (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.