Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Topological morphology descriptor

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. --Ixfd64 (talk) 23:32, 26 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Topological morphology descriptor (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)

Notability not yet established; No secondary sources; New method and name first published in peer reviewed journal on 3 October (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12021-017-9341-1) ELEKHH^T 05:08, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is from a paper published in 2017 and so the topic has had no time develop the secondary independent sourcing needed for verification and notability. It may be a case of WP:TOOSOON, therefore no prejudice to re-creation if multiple independent RS become available. --Mark viking (talk) 21:46, 20 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:06, 21 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Mark viking, with no prejudice against recreation if term becomes accepted by independent sources. It's fantastic to have scientists helping create articles about academic concepts on Wikipedia, but all in good time. I've flagged the page creator as having a likely WP:COI, but hope they won't be put off contributing elsewhere. Nick Moyes (talk) 01:31, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, same reasons. A lot of scientists coin new terms for their findings, but not all of these catch on, and the originator is a poor judge of its significance. If the term starts to be used by scientists other than the group that originated it, that would be the time. Agricolae (talk) 19:02, 22 October 2017 (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.