Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Icelandology

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 09:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Icelandology

This article is a recreation of an article that has already been deleted three times. The term itself is a nn neologism. There are only 213 ghits. Why there should be a made-up term for the study of Iceland when there is not such a term for the study of any other country does not make sense. The "science" itself is called geography. Anything that can be said in this article is more than covered under Iceland. Agent 86 19:03, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: History of article: First created in May last year, then prodded in May this year. Was re-created in slightly reworded form, so prod contested. The re-creation was then speedied on July 13 as nonsense - which I don't think was the most appropriate. Later, it was speedied as repost. Hence this probably should not be deleted as repost, despite the nomination; let's give it its day(s) at AfD. Kimchi.sg 19:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Save:The first article was deleted because of suspect of the promotional purposes. I have fixed this problem, but someone delete it automaticly without discussion.

The first article was the result of the work of some contributors (not only me) so I think that the term is needful.

Iceland is unique country. The history, environment, culture and location of this country causes that some reserchers want to group all the sciences about Iceland in the one term.

Scientists create neologism every days. They call new stars, new chemical compounds, new plants and new animals. It is normal situation. So the term "icelandology" should be listed in Wikiepdia similar to a new plants names.

The term name is build in the same way as "sinology" or other country-sciences.

Geography is the only part of the icelandology, because icelandology include also humanistic sciences. Geography is too narrow science to use in this case.

Because we are scientists and we study all problems about Iceland, we call ourselves "icelandologists". This simple name is enough good to describe what we are doing and what we are interested in.

Icelandology seems to be a perfect term for such purposes and we use it from some years in Poland (Polish: islandologia).

Occurence in Google is not a proof that new scientific word should not be included in Wikipedia. New chemical compounds are very often described only in one article, but it is not a reason to forbid publication in Wikiepdia.

Before someone decide to delete this page, please discuss it before... Deletion is fast and easy, the creation and writing of new articles is more laborious. I hope you understand our reasons. Instead of deletion you may still put any warning that this article is controversial. If you have got any questions, please feel free to add your comments. Discussion is a better solution than deleting.--Yuiul 19:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - next to no appearances in Google, most of them that do appear are wiki derived. I am unconvinced that sticking a "-ology" postfix on a subject automatically creates a valid term that should be included in wikipedia. Artw 20:18, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Move> to icelandic studies, as perUppland. It should probably get a heavy rewrite once it gets there so that it's not quite so poland-centric. Artw 21:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually justplain Delete it... icelandic studies would seem to have a different meaning and I'm sure that if it is necessary as an article someone can create it without refering back to this one. Artw 23:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Fails WP:NEO. Zero hits on Google Scholar[1]. Zero hits on Google Books[2]. Zero hits on Factiva news database. A little over 200 hits on google, mostly seem to be copies of the Wikipedia article[3]. It may be a useful term, but Wikipedia is not a means to popularize freshly minted protologisms. Is there an article on the subject in the Icelandic Wikipedia? If so, that should be better referenced - if there is no article, or no well-referenced article, than that's another big negative.Bwithh 20:37, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and move to Icelandic studies. No reason to delete just because of the title. There are in fact plenty of area study disciplines like this one. This just happens to be a too literal translation from Polish, where the discipline, as the Polish author points out, is called islandologia (20,400 Google hits). up+land 20:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with the move idea, except that as it stands, the article would have little or no meaningful/distinct content once the Icelandology neologism/protologism is removed. The article could be "XXXX studies" of any country - an entirely generic description of the broadest possible research coverage in a country context, without any specifics. Of course there are many area/culure studies disciplines, but they have specifics. If it is moved, I would suggest stubifying the article, or totally rewriting the current content. Bwithh 21:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Modified suggestion: Move to User:Yuiul/Icelandic studies, and let the author expand the article with more useful information on the history of Icelandic studies, where it is pursued (not limited to one particular university in Poland), which the important journals are, etc, before it can be moved back to mainspace. up+land 21:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I abstain. It seems that no constructive solution is possible. up+land 07:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete and start Icelandic studies article from scratch. ~ trialsanderrors 22:01, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Hmm... There is indeed such a thing as Icelandic studies,[4] which I suppose could be article-worthy but I think that term refers primarily to studies of Iceland's mediaeval literature. Apart from that I have nothing to add to Uppland's comments. Let's just try to be nice to what seems to be a good-faith contributor. Haukur 22:02, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Creating any unnecessary term by connecting a word with -ology is senseless of course. But in the case when the term may be used instead of other many words, it is useful, advantageous and justified. The "icelandic study" refers to language study only. Icelandic is the language used in Iceland.--Yuiul 23:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Question What other research centers focus on Iceland, maybe under a different name? If it's an established research field, with journals and conferences it might be a keep, but the article mentions only one institute. ~ trialsanderrors 23:29, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article purports to discuss a field of scientific study, but this field does not exist as a unified field of study, e.g. there are no journals, no conferences, no nothing.... Stefán Ingi 23:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: There is only one center which use the term "icelandology". The Center exists only few years, but we publish many electronic articles on our webpage www.iceland.pl - this is only in Polish (the greatest site about Iceland in Poland).--Yuiul 01:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I think it merits a two-line inclusion in Geography of Iceland. The Geography of Iceland has been studied by many researchers, including the first dedicated research center on Icelandology ("islandologia") in Wroclaw, Poland.", with an external link. The case for its own article, is hard to support. ~ trialsanderrors 01:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete - nn and qualifiy for CSD G4. Start Icelandic studies from scratch if it's notable, though this one must go. --WinHunter ^(talk) 11:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as obvious tosh. --Nydas 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• ICELANDIC STUDIES is a science about the language and literature only. Please read other comments. "ICELANDIC" is the language in Iceland.--Yuiul 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - not in regular use. BlueValour 21:39, 21 July 2006 (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.