Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technopathogenology

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 delete. Dakota 04:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Technopathogenology

Technopathogenology (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Non-notable neologism, 2 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 04:27, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep - A neologism, yes, but by Wikipedia guidelines, this is notable, the relevant guideline being: "In order to have a verifiable article, a topic must be notable enough that it will be described by multiple independent reliable sources." The two G-hits above appear to be academically reliable, and the sources listed in the article itself would also qualify. Akradecki 04:39, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Eguiazu invented something, Eguiazu wrote a few works about it. They're all cited here. The fourth cite doesn't look promising either. Nobody else has written about it. This is a case the inventory supporting the invention. - crz crztalk 04:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable, unverifiable protologism. Fails WP:NEO, fails WP:V by way of failing WP:RS.Both the non-wiki google hits on Google come from articles sourced to the apparent coiner of this term. All except one book reference in article come from apparent coiner of the term. No hits on Google Books or Google Scholar. Wikipedia must not be used as a platform for promoting coinages Bwithh 05:10, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh. Sandstein 21:35, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per crz. Danny Lilithborne 22:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
• Delete I'm with crz and Bwithh --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 02:15, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Keep""This is the case the inventory supporting the invention""Wikipedia must not be used as a platform for promoting coinages " OK But if it is the case what is the problem to put it in Wikipedia? There are a lot of intrascendent terms( I tell you a list if you like)in Wikipedia.Are you sure It was not the case? You can affirm it? I think the problem is that technopathogenology an "unpollitically" term is. "Keep"

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.