Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrosciences


 * 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. (aeropa gitica) 13:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Astrosciences
This term is a neologism that has no definition or accepted meaning. Violation of WP:OR (it's a made-up word), WP:VER (not verifiable), WP:RS (Source(s) of "term" are not-notable at all), WP:NOT (not a dictionary, especially for proposed neologisms not from reliable source(s)) Kenosis 17:00, 27 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per non. Also, the term takes the pretense of relating to science, but the few internert sources there are seem to be related to pseudoscience or science fiction.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149;  21:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete (probably), that is unless the WP:NOR, the pseudoscience (astrology) and the science fiction are removed, and articles rewritten to discuss the similarities and differences between astronomy, astrogeology, astrobiology, cosmology, etc, when it might be worth reconsidering. Until then, tho, delly . &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, redirect (no merge) to space science, which discusses exact;y the abpve. &mdash; Dunc|&#9786; 16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been merged with Articles for deletion/Astrobotany in the interests of organization. Please discuss this nomination there. Admin: please close this discussion on administrative grounds. (|--   UlT i MuS  21:17, 28 August 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.