Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Absolute hot
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
— User:XOR, 18:28, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:SIGCOV||WP:RS (Wikipedia:Notability)