Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hylemetry

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:35, 25 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hylemetry

[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)

Doesn't appear to be notable. I couldn't find much in the way of secondary sources. I think this might be largely someone's pet project. PepperBeast (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. PepperBeast (talk) 19:22, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Extremely limited coverage in independent sources (i.e. not published by Spagnolo) -Liance^{talk/contribs} 22:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was similarly unable to identify non-trivial coverage of this concept that hadn't been authored by Spagnolo. Without independent sourcing, it does not meet the GNG. No alternatives to deletion come to mind: we don't have an article on Spagnolo to redirect to, and there is no other possible target for a merge and/or redirect. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also a violation of our pilicies on neologisms. While the concept is reasonable enough, we shouldn't push pet names for topics until they have substantial independent adoption. — Charles Stewart (talk) 11:08, 25 March 2022 (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.