Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hermopolitanism


 * 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 no consensus to delete as a dictionary definition just yet. Should be wikified and probably moved though. W.marsh 18:32, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hermopolitanism
This seems to be a neologism with no common use. A Google search of the term brings up two websites on geocities and tripod, both created by the same person. Anyway, original research and non-verifiable. Wafulz 14:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Akradecki 16:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment. Google Scholar finds 36 hits for "hermopolitan", most apparently consistent in meaning with the entry and with the noun form used as the title here, though hermopolitanism itself has no hits. So I'm not convinced it really is WP:OR or WP:NEO; it seems to me more a somewhat-obscure scholarly adjective that was made into a noun so it could be used as a title. I'm more concerned that the current entry is just a dictionary definition; it needs elaboration to stand on its own. —David Eppstein 20:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment That the suggestion that using "Hermopolitanism" to refer to the "Hermopolitan Tradition" may be an unallowable neologism is understood. But, as recently published studies find wider discussion, the term will probably be needed (in the way that Neptune required a tentative reference, being detected from its effects on the orbit of Uranus before being confirmed by direct optical observation).  I.e., conclusions are more firmly scientific, but without theories, would not exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonofthemummy (talk • contribs)  Moved from talk page of article --Wafulz 01:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment WP:NOT. Once the theory has been knocked about in a few academic journals, or at least received some significant press coverage, THEN it would be considered encyclopedic. --Roninbk t c # 10:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Move to Hermapolitan tradition. And yes, it needs to be more than a dicdef. Michael Kinyon 09:28, 27 September 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.