Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Widensity Index

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. Mark Arsten (talk) 02:45, 10 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Widensity Index

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

Non-notable index (contested prod). Not a single hit on Google Scholar [1] or Google Books. Considering the explanations given on the talk page by the creator, WP:TOOSOON applies. Namely, it's too soon for the index to have an article. It should first become notable. Edcolins (talk) 19:31, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The research has yet to be published based on the article talk page and the complete lack of results in a Google Scholar search. -- Whpq (talk) 21:48, 6 August 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, Mark Arsten (talk) 17:59, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete NN neologism. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:06, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete neologism that hasn't caught on. Seyasirt (talk) 23:35, 9 August 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.