Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exponential Design Weight

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. DGG ( talk ) 20:15, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exponential Design Weight[edit]

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG, not discussed in WP:RS. Neologism sourced to one self-published book. Part of the WP:WALLEDGARDEN associated with Jacob Lindborg (also at AfD). Contested PROD. Kinu ^t/_c 16:58, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as something made up one day. Without any evidence of this invented concept having ever been used by anyone other than its creator in his single, apparently non-notable book, there is no place for such a term in the encyclopedia. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 17:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable neologism and soapboxing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 12:13, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG. Also, page creators banned as sock puppets --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:49, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Created by sock puppets and is non notable neologism.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2014 (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.