Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fallacy of prescience
A single, dated, and primary source that is not independent of the researchers proposing the term is far bellow the threshold necessary to establish notability.  This is essentially a case of an attempt to up-jump a eologism--and considering that the source was released more than a decade ago and not a single other researcher or source has embraced it, I think it's clear that it never broke into popular usage.  Indeed, the one source that does exist is not sufficient to support more than two sentences of content.  I just can't see any justification for maintaining this article
— User:Snow, 05:51, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:N (Wikipedia:Notability)