Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miserology

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 of the debate was deleted. -- Drini 03:31, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Miserology

Original research. Probably a hoax. No relevant Ghits. Srikeit^{(talk ¦ ✉)} 03:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete - as the nominator says. - Richardcavell 03:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - as per above. :) Dlohcierekim 03:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete unless there are verifiable sources provided. This is highly likely original research Gwernol 03:49, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - no evidence the term is in wide use & the article looks fishy. ND 03:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom.--blue520 04:05, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as OR/hoax. Kevin 04:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete This article is miserable Aeon 05:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above. DarthVader 09:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete: Eight google hits. One website has 'What is miserology?', but that link is a 404. Either way, it's not a notable neologism, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 12:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NEO. And it's a dicdef anyway. And uncited. And complete bollocks. Whatever. Just zis Guy you know? 15:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete neologism in the face! ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 22:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete nonsense M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 23:52, 17 May 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.