Deletion of Absolute hot

Comment: as utterly failing : extremely few sources, none of them reliable, and then no more than an unscientific mention (the BBC link given by Jackattack1597 being an example).  An wikt:exemplar|exemplar of what does not belong in WP
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: Cruft. Simple cruft. It's a non-notable neologism with passing mentions in gray-area-or-worse "references". None of the few items that searching has turned up constitute |significant coverage in |reliable sources. ("Futurism" is a schlock website for sensationalism, ScienceAlert is an aggregator that was literally just reposting an infographic that doesn't itself give a source for the term, etc.) These are the kind of marginal-to-outright-garbage "references" that Wikipedia:List of citogenesis incidents|might have just copied from Wikipedia themselves. Passing mentions in pop science aren't the kind of material we need to base an encyclopedia article upon. We don't need an article for a synonym for Planck temperature that scientists don't actually use. Actual scientific terminology has a ''far'' stronger presence than a pop-science infographic that doesn't even say where ''it'' got the term from. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Headlines|Headlines are not reliable sources, and for practical purposes, infographics are all headline. There ''are'' An Exceptionally Simple Theory of Everything|isolated cases where a topic becomes wiki-notable because the pop-science coverage was so intense that it overcame a dearth of peer-reviewed literature, but this is not one of them
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS)

Comment: Lacks any good source. It would be interesting if "absolute hot" were a thing, but it just isn't. The actual scientific concepts are Planck temperature and Hagedorn temperature, and joining them like this is  as others have pointed out
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)