Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hookology


 * 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 Snowball Delete -- JForget  21:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Hookology

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

Article was prod'd by four different editors per WP:NEO, WP:NOTDICT, WP:SPAM, WP:RS. Ghits don't come up with reliable sources. Cited sources do not support the subject. -- Mufka (u) (t) (c) 11:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This artical has secondary support in the cited sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hookology (talk • contribs) 11:48, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * No it hasn't. The sources support other things, which have been synthesized, in a novel manner, into this, which is a violation of our No original research policy. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Good grief. This seems to be a neologism with slightly confused origins at the very least. Looking at what appears to be the website behind this, they seem to put it down to the teachings of Rev Amiri B. Hooker, whilst the article credits it to a Dr Benjamin L. Hooks. That's just the tip of the iceberg, though, and the whole thing smells suspiciously hoax-like to me. If it does turn out to be genuine, it still fails the majority of the acronyms that Mufka mentions above, in conjuction to being entirely unverifiable and carrying with it WP:COI concerns. As such, Deletion is the best option.  one brave  monkey  11:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not quite true. See what was excised from the article in this edit. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes... that makes a bit more sense. I called it as the article was as it was nommed...didn't look in the history.  one brave  monkey  12:56, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * A quick Google Web search is informative. This concept is a novel synthesis of other ideas, being propounded by one person with a web site and a MySpace page, and brought here by the single-purpose account, whom it is not unreasonable to suppose might be that very same single person, deciding to abuse Wikipedia as a platform for promoting xyr idea to the world.  There are no independent reliable sources documenting this idea in depth, and there is thus no evidence that it has escaped from its creator, been acknowledged by the world at large, and become a part of the documented corpus of human knowledge.  This is original research. Wikipedia is not a soapbox for promoting new ideas.  Delete. Uncle G (talk) 12:14, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as it is a non-cromulent word that doesn't embiggen Wikipedia.  P HARMBOY   ( moo )  12:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete — Non-notable neologism. MuZemike  ( talk ) 13:31, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, original synthesis of a non-notable neologism, with kudos to Pharmboy. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Cool I love kudos. So crunchy.  When I saw the article title, my first thought is that it was an anthology for the 70s band Dr. Hook.  Seriously.   P HARMBOY   ( moo )  14:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * When I saw it, I thought it was a religion based on the teachings of Captain Hook. Of all the hoaxes User:Hookology could've created, I don't see why they chose this one. [Phlygh  t ]  14:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete as per my PROD, WP:OR and something that has no reputable sources that I could find by google. --Terrillja (talk) 14:26, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Side note 3 PROD2s? That is certainly a first for me --Terrillja (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. References to Ben Hooks have nothing to do with this.  This appears to be little more than a synthesized neologism. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 14:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. The synthesis in this article really is fascinating; the words "something out of nothing" come to mind. Having said that, the article is about a non-notable neologism. Wikipedia is not for things made up one day. Phlyght (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.   -- • Gene93k (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy? Shame we don't have WP:BJAODN anymore, this would make a good addition :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 18:24, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * strong delete this should have been speedy deleted. there are no sources, it's non-notable (perhaps non-existent) etc... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bali ultimate (talk • contribs) 21:33, 30 October 2008
 * Comment, although somewhat on a tangent: Would it be appropriate to also nominate Hookology's user page as miscellany for deletion? It seems to be a biased and personal version of this article, and is a good example of what shouldn't appear in userspace. [Phlygh  t ]  14:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:MADEUP, WP:NOR and WP:SNOW and because I agree with the above Pharmboy that the subject is not cromulent. I might go as far as to say that it is nuncupatory (in a Vancean sense rather than a Pickwickian). --Bonadea (talk) 15:24, 31 October 2008 (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.