Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Functional vegetology


 * 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. L Faraone  01:32, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Functional vegetology

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This appears to be a neologism and original research, as after searches including the Cyrillic version I do not find that the term is used or referred to anywhere except in Prof. Makats' writings and his journal Vegetologia. The book cited is not in Worldcat or Google Books, and the term "Functional vegetology" does not appear in Google Scholar. The article author says on the talk page "There are no sources on "functional vegetology" so far and that is why this article is to inform global comunity about new trends in practical medicine", but Wikipedia is not here to announce new discoveries: the No original research policy says: "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article about it. If you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery." It is too soon for an article until this topic has been discussed in independent reliable sources. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. JohnCD (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't think the pdf is MEDRS, since there is no list of references, and also since it may be self published material. Not sure about the other 2 ISBN sources. Can't access them. No PUBMED hits for "Functional vegetology"... Lesion  ( talk ) 21:10, 3 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete - I'm able to pull up the first book used as a ref in Google Books. No mention of functional vegeotlogy int here that I could find.  Scholar search results indicate little notice has been taken of this. -- Whpq (talk) 16:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per lack of WP:42, particularly the part about the coverage needing to be independent.   13:30, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - No coverage in RSes to back usage and importance of the term. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:59, 8 June 2013 (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.