Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaivna

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. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gaivna

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

Non-notable neologism, only spoken of in a 2015 self-published book. Article creator seems to be on a mission to promote it here. — Jeraphine Gryphon ^(talk) 17:11, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agreed, seems to be an attempt to turn the neologism into a word via Wikipedia. RailwayScientist (talk) 17:19, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Can't really find any sources on this. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I've done a "scholar" search, and I cannot find any scholarly commentary on the subject. As far as I can tell, this word comes entirely from a single book by a single author, and there has been no notice by secondary sources. As such, it clearly fails WP:GNG. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know if it, but its not yet mainstream with any substantial third party references - name for a method really. ----Snowded ^TALK 20:35, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is self promoting stuff - Damien Raczy 05:51, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Delete I am the author of the book and believe the article should be deleted because have never felt comfortable with the references appearing in the lede and am concerned they are inconsistent with undue weight. Snowden is right that Gaivna is not a word. I'm not sure that it's a methodology because there are no practices. In a way that seems optimistic to me. However he is right that there is that potential. --Encyclotadd (talk) 16:03, 11 November 2015 (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.