Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brainomics


 * 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. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 18:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Brainomics

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod. Non-notable neologism, none of the given sources seem to mention the term, also not the one provided by the author in this edit, see a search result on the BrainHealth center's website Google search returns a few blog entries only and a single lecture referring to a speech and an article. I say this term fails WP:NEO. On a second note, judging from her edit history, the author Elizabethch[apman]88 might have a COI in promoting Sandra Bond Chapman's work. De728631 (talk) 00:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  —Radagast 3  (talk) 09:59, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral: my role in this was simply to post the AfD notice at the top of the article and to move the AfD from July 29 to July 30.  No position on the merits.  69.251.180.224 (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable sources mentioning the term; fails WP:N. -- Radagast 3 (talk) 09:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The center's website does talk about "brainomics" and it has been discussed in speeches given by Chapman. This article should not be deleted. Elizabethch88 (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC) — Elizabethch88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Comment. Even if the center calls its research brainomics, the term has apparently not yet been accepted widely enough elsewhere. We cannot base an article on a single institution that invented this neologism. De728631 (talk) 12:47, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete as neologism not in common usage. Indeed, the only academic source I can find that uses the term link uses it to mean proteomics applied to the CNS. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:35, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. A term coined by a company outsourced from a university. No other notable coverage of the term, feels too much like advertising. Nageh (talk) 14:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. In fact, there is already an article on the company: Center for BrainHealth. If anything, the topic should be mentioned in that article. Nageh (talk) 14:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can't find enough independent usage of this term to warrant its own article; fails WP:NEO. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 15:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
 * 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.