Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xerophytophysiology


 * 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. Apparently the usage of the expression is so limited that it is not a very likely search term. Deleting for now and not leaving a redirect. Tone 22:43, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Xerophytophysiology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article appears to be a piece of original research, as the author's username is very similar to the most frequently cited researcher in it. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 07:58, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Additional comment: Even if the author is not one of the people named Xu cited within it, this article will need a serious overhaul to make it intelligible to a non-expert in the subject it discusses. D. J. Cartwright (talk) 08:01, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course. Sorry if it looks like that's the only focus of my comment below... it's just a connect-the-dots possible explanation as to why it ever came to Wikipedia and seems desperate for attention since there's no support for it in any other sources. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: I would cite this as a case where anyone knowledgable in a topic is likely to have a conflict-a situation the FDA encounters all the time. Under the obscure but notable notion I've tried to invent, I'd ask the sponsor of this aricle to find citations to the work- a COI editor would be in the best position to do this. If you can establish significant note, at least by others in the field, it could make notability. This may in fact be a non-notable neologism but the sponsor should be encouraged to write related articles in the general area. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to xerophyte. The term does not receive enough usage to justify a separate article. Looie496 (talk) 17:35, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and do not redirect. The term is unused except by this single author, at least as far as a GScholar search shows. A ordinary case of an idiosyncratic neologism.  Redirecting this permits redirecting any word that someone makes up and manages to get into the title of an article.   DGG ( talk ) 21:28, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, and I have no idea how you could even merge it if you wanted to. The two formats are completely different, and this article is literally an unformatted blob of text. Anyway, let's make this really simple-- see username of publishing editor. Compare to the primary author listed in any google search result for the term (nothing but sites to buy what I assume is the original text); "XU Hui-Lian". Original research that can't seem to be found anywhere else, in an unformatted blob of text (which could be fixed if it had to, though), and username comparison along with a contributions check. There's no other action to take because of that technically-circumstantial evidence, but it can be used as weight here toward a delete consensus. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:31, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to "xerophyte". This is a neologism, mentioned only in passing by the references. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  07:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Why redirect if this is pretty much an unknown term that's being pushed by a highly suspicious COI/OR conflict? The term has zero mention at all in the article being redirected to... if it's so incredibly void of notability that it's not found on a parent-type page, it has no place deserving a redirect since from an encyclopedia perspective the phrase doesn't exist. This is basically WP:YAMB in disguise. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 12:28, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The word is used in a handful of references, although those references use it only in passing. It could conceivably be a search term used by a reader. Axl  ¤  [Talk]  18:12, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Most importantly, it is actually used in the title of an article in a scientific journal. Looie496 (talk) 20:11, 3 November 2009 (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.