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) 19:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cladoendesis[edit]

Cladoendesis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The topic is not supported by secondary sources. The term on which the article is based appears to be only significantly used by the author of the paper introducing it (who also appears to be the creator and main editor of the Wikipedia article). Peter coxhead (talk) 16:03, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for lack of the independent sources needed for WP:NPOV and failure to pass WP:GNG. Google scholar finds 5 hits (two in Russian) but they are all by the same people. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per absence of sources on GS. -- 202.124.73.12 (talk) 03:22, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I couldn't find any other sources on PubMed or Google apart from the two included. As far as I can tell, the term appears to be a neologism invented by Dr Kluge. Per the general notability guideline, the sources do not constitute "significant coverage", nor are they "independent of the subject". Axl ¤ [Talk] 09:50, 9 July 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.