Deletion of Climaticide

Comment: I have to agree with the nom.  In checking it out, there may appear to be some |reliable sources but I feel that it is not a |notable EO|neologism.  As you say "is being adopted at a rapid rate" shows a partial violation of .  Also, blogs are not a |reliable source because they can be created by anyone and not |verifiable.  Just recently, Avril Lavigne convinced news people that she was pregnant through "reliable" blogs.  The article is also very much into the relm of |original research
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N||WP:NEO||WP:CRYSTAL||WP:RS||WP:V||WP:OR)

Comment: the article has no reliable sources for use in English, but it claims that the meanings in English and French differ. My Google search gave 126 unique hits; that's not quite widespread use. At most, a redirect to climate change seems in order, a separate article looks like a 
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks (WP:FORK)

Comment: This is too much about the specific word rather than the topic and so fails .  It should be redirected to Climate change
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:DICDEF)