Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plasticity product


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. Liz Read! Talk! 19:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Plasticity product

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Tagged for notability since 2010. Seems to have been a neologism. Other than the one repeated source, the others don't seem to use the term, though they use the concept. Fails WP:GNG. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Biology. UtherSRG (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Question Has anyone been able to access and check Reference 1? If the term is used significantly in that book then it may be a notable concept.  But I agree with nom that the article seems to have a lot of SYNTH, bringing together selected examples that never actually talk about the concept.  If it is kept, the article needs a major rewrite. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)  Keep I managed to find a couple of references to the concept: .  However, the term doesn't seem to be very widely used, and a search of "plasticity product" mostly gets you articles on geotechnical and soil science, where it of course has a different meaning.  So maybe a disambiguation page or a change of title to "plasticity product (neurobiology)", or something like that, would be a good idea. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete - the first two papers located by WeirdNAnnoyed are authored by the coiner of the term, and the last is a single mention rather than an explanation of the term. Would change my mind if "plasticity product" was discussed at some length in a secondary source like a review article or a textbook. Otherwise, as the nomination points out, it looks like a non-notable WP:NEO. &#12296; Forbes72 &#124; Talk &#12297; 02:41, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Not a coinage that has had any substantial uptake. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 00:09, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a protologism, meaning it isn't even eligible for transwiki to Wiktionary. Google ngram viewer shows 0 hits; pubmed shows no instances of "plasticity product".  --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me ) 01:49, 16 August 2023 (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.