Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolute hot

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. ✗plicit 23:47, 1 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Absolute hot

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PRODded by Quondum (talk · contribs) as a neologism originating in a NOVA epsiode that fails WP:NEO, and does not appear elsewhere. The deprodder, Jackattack1597 (talk · contribs), did not provide any sources that prove notability. See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Absolute_hot.

The content is entirely about two different topics (Planck temperature and Hagedorn temperature) discussed separately, so it may fail WP:SYNTH as well. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a poorly sourced neologism. It might become a notable term at some point, but definitely isn't at this point judging from how few sources there are for the term. SamStrongTalks (talk) 22:11, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a borderline case, but I deprodded it because I could find another reliable source mentioning the term ( This BBC infographic , which not only mentions it but includes it in the "headline" of the infographic. Jackattack1597 (talk) 00:00, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as utterly failing WP:GNG: extremely few sources, none of them reliable, and then no more than an unscientific mention (the BBC link given by Jackattack1597 being an example). An exemplar of what does not belong in WP. —Quondum 00:16, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- The BBC is a reliable source. A 'scientific' term doesn't have to be used scientifically to be considered notable, especially if it's been used by an influential source. Borderline keep. --jftsang 16:25, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cruft. Simple cruft. It's a non-notable neologism with passing mentions in gray-area-or-worse "references". None of the few items that searching has turned up constitute significant coverage in reliable sources. ("Futurism" is a schlock website for sensationalism, ScienceAlert is an aggregator that was literally just reposting an infographic that doesn't itself give a source for the term, etc.) These are the kind of marginal-to-outright-garbage "references" that might have just copied from Wikipedia themselves. Passing mentions in pop science aren't the kind of material we need to base an encyclopedia article upon. We don't need an article for a synonym for Planck temperature that scientists don't actually use. Actual scientific terminology has a far stronger presence than a pop-science infographic that doesn't even say where it got the term from. Headlines are not reliable sources, and for practical purposes, infographics are all headline. There are isolated cases where a topic becomes wiki-notable because the pop-science coverage was so intense that it overcame a dearth of peer-reviewed literature, but this is not one of them. XOR'easter (talk) 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SYNTH of two totally different concepts that are covered in their own separate articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 06:05, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per "adding two not notable topics does not make one notable" (WP:SYNTH). Cinadon36 10:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks any good source. It would be interesting if "absolute hot" were a thing, but it just isn't. The actual scientific concepts are Planck temperature and Hagedorn temperature, and joining them like this is WP:SYNTH as others have pointed out. Tercer (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2021 (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.