Deletion of Praxis effect

Comment: According to https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=Yz6-rGZXaagC&pg=PA130&dq=%22Praxis+effect%22+%22star+trek%22&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR076K46XyAhXVEnAKHaRSCZcQ6AEwAHoECAkQAg ILM's ”Praxis effect” shockwave became a common feature in science fiction films depicting the destruction of large objects. Except that's an article from the... Pedia Press, likely reprinting Wikipedia. GScholar just gives one hit for some inaccessible work in French. I checked the source cited (https://books.google.co.kr/books?id=eInnwg77gbkC&lpg=PP1&dq=editions%3AcITiUe77-UIC&pg=PA254#v=onepage&q=praxis&f=false), it doesn't even use this term, which seems to have been coined by the author of our article (it briefly describes the scene, related to the explosion of the moon Praxis, and talks about it being an effect, but doesnt' call it the "Praxis effect"). So this is not a hoax, but a  by
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:OR)

Comment: as the subject does not appear to meet . Watchlisting this, in case new sources are identified. Regards
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: or '''merge''': ''https://www.google.de/books/edition/Les_images_de_synth%C3%A8se_au_cin%C3%A9ma/3momDwAAQBAJ?hl=de&gbpv=0 Les images de synthèse au cinéma does'' contain the ''name'' of the effect, so I think this should lay |neologism concerns to rest, even though I have to say that this source is from 2017, so the Wikipedia article predates that book. It is by Armand Colin, which seem legitimate enough to me. The treatment there is quite short, but I think it tells who created the effect and coined the term! (But I am not firm enough to understand completely, maybe someone has the time to type into Google translator). tells us where the effect comes from (film and company), where the name comes from, that it was influential. So if this together is seen as too short for , I have no great aversion to a merge - though I wouldn't know where. But I think this should ''not'' be deleted, as the ''effect'' seems legitimate according to the source already in the article, no matter the concerns about the ''name''. In addition I have found https://www.cbr.com/star-trek-hidden-secret-easter-eggs/ this CBR article, which has a paragraph on the effect. Now I am fuzzy again on the reliability of CBR. If it counts, we should have no problem with  any more
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:GNG||WP:GNG)