Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exomissiology


 * 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. Jayjg (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Exomissiology

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  AfD statistics)

Seems to be just a WP:NEOLOGISM which primarily exists in a paper by Thomas Hoffmann. The unpublished master's thesis (Word file) the article cites is by a doctoral student writing about Thomas Hoffmann who expressly put the term in quotation marks to indicate it is a made up word ("Hoffman has called for an 'exomissiology' to raise the Christian mission field to a vast new level . . . ."). Not presently a notable term. Glenfarclas (talk) 22:34, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - we so don't need made-up stuff about missions to martians! Errr... that's WP:OR and WP:RS and so on... andy (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete I find very little other than that paper...and no evidence that the term has been picked up or that that paper was influential in any way. Cazort (talk) 23:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per WP:NEO. Joe Chill (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Retain (Do not delete) This is no "neologism", but a established term used in widely-read theology journals. Would not use of this term "exomissiology" in two theology journals (DIALOG and NOVA RELIGIO), as cited, be enough to qualify the term as "notable"? If not, then citations in how many established academic journals would be excepted in order to qualify for notability? (If more than two journals are required, then we could wait, for a few years, until the term comes into use in more journals; which is likely, given that more theologians are beginning to take an interest in astronomy and the implications of astronomy -- if not among Christian theologians, then among theologians of other religions, or perhaps the theologians of modern UFO cults, or at least among science-fiction writers.)0XQ (talk) 13:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The mere use of the term, or citing of the original paper, in multiple sources is not enough to make it notable. If you could find several articles (written by a few different authors) which were written specifically about the topic / concept of "exomissiology", using that term to refer to the concept, then I might be on the fence and possibly recommend keeping it.  But the only source I could find with this level of detail was the original article coining the term.  This is important for WP:N standards, because as is, there's not enough material to write a balanced article based on reliable sources--you can't base an encyclopedia article on a single source.  Cazort (talk) 16:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - Wikipedia is not a dictionary for terms that happen to be used obscurely in two theology journals. When there are third-party independent sources that discuss this term in a rigorous and comprehensive way, then Wikipedia should include it. ScienceApologist (talk) 14:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Unsurprisingly, the subject does not meet notability requirements. Johnuniq (talk) 03:19, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Nonsense topic that is not encyclopedic in nature. Hardyplants (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Even for serious scientific notions we require more than a handful of appearances in scientific journals. In addition to an article in "Dialog", a "journal of theology" addressing "the frontiers of theological discussion" and apparently not even peer reviewed, it seems to be mentioned in one scholarly paper on UFO religions and one fringe book. That's simply not enough notability for anything, especially not for fringe. Hans Adler 09:09, 22 December 2009 (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.