Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copenology


 * 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. Brandon (talk) 20:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Copenology

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Prodded last year with rationale: "Seems to be an attempt to promote a neologism as well as the person who coined it. Not many Google hits." Prod was removed, but I agree. I suspect the main contributer to have a conflict of interest. Article was previously more promotional; it has been whittled down and now it is too short to be very helpful. Rigadoun (talk) 04:49, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete apparently non-notable term used by almost no-one. For a term that purports itself to be a valid neuroscience concept, it has exactly ONE hit in google scholar:  and that one is spammier than Terry Jones in a dress.  I see nothing in any reasonable search to indicate this is a real, accepted scientific concept. -- Jayron  32  05:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - No hits at all on Google News and 1 hit at Google Scholar, where you would figure the term would be listed, and that one hit was actually a promotional site for the original author of this piece, as shown here . Sorry to say SPAM hiding as an article.  Thanks ShoesssS Talk 05:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - how did it last this long? Tim Song (talk) 05:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete No proof of notability 14:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)Rirunmot (talk)
 * 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.