Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phit

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. Cirt (talk) 00:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Phit

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

Neologism, no relevant hits on Google Books or Google Scholar,term is used for many other things than putative content of article. (Linked source is unusable for verification) Wtshymanski (talk) 02:56, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Timotheus Canens (talk) 01:46, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Scientific American covers some pretty speculative stuff, and is not sufficient as a sole source for a topic. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The link in the reference doesn't let you find the article either. (the company's copy is at [1], but not on their "publications" page). Google search gives you QUITE different things. --Alvestrand (talk) 08:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It wouldn't be unreasonable to mention the concept very briefly at Bit, but the name is so uncommon in sources that keeping a redirect isn't worthwhile. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:04, 13 January 2010 (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.