Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exonucleophagy


 * 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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:06, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Exonucleophagy

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

? not notable

I searched this term in google and 1 got one result - a youtube video

I searched this term in pubmed and got no results:

Also, the one reference in the article (which appears to be a secondary source) does not seem to use the term, although the document is not searchable and I have only made a quick scan. Matthew Ferguson (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete - seems like a neologism or a term that is a poor translation. I linked it to the French article (Exonucléophagie) but it does not have any additional sources. —Мандичка YO 😜 10:00, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete It sounds like it could be a word, but I can find no evidence that this term is used by anyone other than Mark Bonner (a dentist who seems to be plugging his neologism through youtube and twitter) and Ragaa Issa (an Egyptian professor who is clearly not proficient in English and whose review citing Bonner was published in the typical kind of bottom-feeder journal that exploits non-Western academics). Opabinia regalis (talk) 23:42, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. It does get one hit in Google scholar, but it's an unreliable source (on Beall's list of predatory open access publishers). Even if it were reliable, it wouldn't be enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:38, 20 May 2015 (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.