Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dysmorphometrics

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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:49, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dysmorphometrics

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

Non-notable neologism. The term dysmorphometrics was invented in the cited paper; no indications that this term has gained any currency. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 10:48, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 11:54, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Can we really call something a "non-notable neologism" if it's supported by a peer-reviewed article? It may not reach the "multiple" source requirement of the GNG, but it is the supported by one peer-reviewed source, which is more than you can say about much of our content. Guettarda (talk) 12:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, I believe we can. Just because someone coins a new term in a published article, that doesn't mean that the term will be picked up and brought into common parlance (even among the select group who might be readers of that particular journal). Until the term has been used in several other papers (with or without reference to the original), I think we have to call it non-notable. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 14:22, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google searches find no evidence of coverage in independent reliable sources. Qwfp (talk) 17:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete—per nom and Qwfp. Not yet notable because it is not covered by multiple sources. It's the "multiple" bit of the GNG that prevents us from having articles on every theory published. Livit⇑^Eh?/_What? 19:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted already, only the one source can be found, which isn't enough for ongoing notability at this point. Nwlaw63 (talk) 20:57, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. -- Joaquin008 ^(talk) 12:57, 10 March 2012 (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.