Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Possibilianism

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2010 July 20.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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 merge to Sum (book). WP:SNOW MBisanz ^talk 23:04, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Possibilianism

David Eagleman seems to be reasonably notable. I am dubious about the notability of his latest book: Sum. But I definitely think that this word he has coined is not even notable enough for a redirect. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Internet search reveals barely any mentions of the word. Fails notability on range of quality sources available. MarquisCostello (talk) 03:26, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge and redirect Google search as of 09:56 UTC today shows the article itself as the only online reference to the term, so not notable. Gonzonoir (talk) 09:57, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Changed mind in light of comments below Gonzonoir (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:NEOLOGISM. Not a useful search term. Baileypalblue (talk) 10:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to the book Sum (book). I think this actually could be a search term, but shouldn't have an article per WP:NEO. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk 19:14, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Linguist. The term seems to be a focal point of the book, a redirect seems helpful and practical. --J.Mundo (talk) 18:59, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't oppose that -- the term may become a useful search phrase once the book is more widely known. Baileypalblue (talk) 03:38, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as per above comments. If at some future point, there is sufficient reason for a separate article, then that can easily be done. Bondegezou (talk) 13:46, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.