Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extrability

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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extrability

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

This is a neologism with few results on google. Does not pass notability guidelines. Natureium (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The content of the article is significant enough, though currently lacking in sufficient suitable references, and thus worthy of deletion in that way. The name certainly is a neologism, but a "Coping Mechanisms" [Not the band!] or "Coping (Physicality)" would both be reasonable names. I will see if I can find some more general references. @Natureium: would you have any concerns if it had a couple more suitable references and a non-neologism name? Nosebagbear (talk) 11:39, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Failed, unnoticed neologism that doesn't have the extrability to keep itself in Wikipedia. Clarityfiend (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete neologism for a nonexistent "thing" based on hippy-trippy wishful thinking and the euphemism treadmill. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:25, 15 April 2018 (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.