Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sculpturenes


 * 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) 23:02, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sculpturenes

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable. Ref is to the only article I can find that mentions this term (which self-declares as the coining of the term). No articles cite this ref (checked PhysRevB's entry and Scopus), which is pretty bad for the lead ref and original publication on the topic...lack of secondary refs to support notability of primary research. DMacks (talk) 01:43, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge into graphene. A single paper's neologism does not an article make, per WP:GNG and WP:NEO.-- cyclopia speak! 21:59, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete. Little evidence of usage. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2013 (UTC).
 * I would very much like to keep this subject, but all the sources appear to be primary. It expect the subject to establish notability along with its proponent Laith Algharagholy in the near future. Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete as WP:NEO. The term occurs only in an uncited paper by Algharagholy et al. -- 101.119.14.226 (talk) 12:40, 25 October 2013 (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.