Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laicology


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 02:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Laicology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Two problems: it's a dictionary definition, and it also appears to offer the wrong meaning. The root laic means secular (see Laïcité). As far as I can tell "laicology" is only used in theological circles to refer to secular issues, absolutely nothing about "adaptability" or "work environments." Entry has been tagged for export to Wiktionary, but there's no point preserving an incorrect definition. Prod declined. Hairhorn (talk) 19:28, 12 November 2009 (UTC)  Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NW ( Talk ) 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced, dic-def and, as nom. says, just plain wrong. The few hits in Google and Scholar show the word used in the ecclesiological sense. I think this is just something made up one day. JohnCD (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2009 (UTC) see below.
 * Delete per nom. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete: Per above. Joe Chill (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Nice catch Hairhorn, I fixed the article. Ready for transwiki Power.corrupts (talk) 15:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Stroke transwiki, it could probably be expanded beyond mere dic-def Power.corrupts (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep now that we have the correct meaning thanks to Power.corrupts; but keep the dicdef tag to encourage either expansion or transwiki to Wiktionary. JohnCD (talk) 20:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete and don't transwiki The definition seems to make little sense (in what way does laicology deal with the things it claims?) and google has just 6 hits. The term does not seem to be notable, and that includes the Wikipedia, and most of the hits are in quotes, which seems to indicate it's not a real term. It's a dictionary definition as well. Even though it has been rewritten it clearly refers to the meaning of the term, rather covering the underlying concept that the term refers to.- Wolfkeeper  21:11, 19 November 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.