Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logology

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Keep. —Quarl ^(talk) 2007-02-15 22:58Z

[edit] Logology

Logology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Contested prod. Original reason for prod (by me): This is an article about a word, not what the word denotes, and as such, it is a dictionary definition. The prod notice was removed by Openartist who left the following comment on the talk page: As the article contains references, historical information, and also uses of the word in other contexts such as a book of fiction. This transcends the typical content stored in a dictionary as is. And as one could argue that Logology, while a more or less unknown field of study, is a field of study none-the-less. And as a field of study deserves a place in an encylopedia as do other "-ologies." I still say delete. What say you? - ∅ (∅), 18:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep but cleanup. Logology is a notable neologism judging by Google Books & Google Scholar results and a near-half-century of academic use, although it has an informal usage and two formal, separate uses (the works of Borgmann and of Kenneth Burke). I don't think treating it as a "field of study" is accurate except in the hobbyist sense; it is more about a domain of knowledge. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• keep as this is not a dicdef; there is plenty of relevant information here that could be included. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 19:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep just needs to be improved, not deleted --Calibas 19:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• What say I? I say please read the policy that you linked to, especially Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Fixing bad stubs. The Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary policy is inapplicable here, since this is not a dictionary article. What you should be applying are the Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and Wikipedia:Deletion policy policies, and looking for sources to see whether there is enough to write about the subject of logology that the article can be expanded beyond perpetual stub status. Uncle G 19:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
• Disambiguate with a link to Greg Bear "Logology the name of a fictional new religion in Greg Bear's novel, Heads." (as Heads does not have an article) and link to Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities "The first book solely devoted to logology". I will work on the merge to support Disambiguation. Jeepday 19:52, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Comment Merge to Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities complete. Also tagged book article as unreferenced, ghits are high for the subject, but might take a while to dig out good references. Jeepday 20:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

comment why would you make that edit without a consensus? Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens 22:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Response why would I not make an edit?

• One - I edited Language on Vacation: An Olio of Orthographical Oddities
• Two - Even if I had edited Logology there is nothing wrong with improving an article during AfD.
• Three - What exactly do you think I did that was inappropriate? Jeepday 00:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Keep and expand given the commentary above. (jarbarf) 19:38, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.