Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fluxon (philosophy)

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. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fluxon (philosophy)

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

Does not appear to be a notable philosophy, no gbooks or scholar results. Referenced only to the creator. Spinning Spark 20:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. czar · · 20:43, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When my Google Books search showed a bunch of books where the word "flux" just happened by coincidence to occur right before the word "on", I became quickly convinced that this topic isn't notable. WP:NEOLOGISM applies. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:18, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I originally set up this page as a hive-off from Fluxon because someone kept posting this. Clearly has no place alongside physical particles, and because he inserted it at least twice, I thought easiest thing would be a separate page. John of Cromer in ~~Philippines~~ transit (talk) mytime= Wed 17:50, wikitime= 09:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I had seen the history of how it got created and I don't think you are to be criticised for doing that. But persistence does not dilute the need for notability. I have also now notified the IP involved: as it does not appear in the article history Twinkle would have missed it. Spinning Spark 10:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 23:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No coverage of this idea in reliable sources. Sourcing in the article is to a primary source which is self-published through lulu. -- Whpq (talk) 13:50, 14 May 2013 (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.