Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sciences ending in -logy


 * 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. consensus is this material is not appropriate for Wikipedia. If someone would like the content for transwiki, please ping me. StarM 03:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

List of sciences ending in -logy

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

A bit indescriminate. Why are sciences ending in -logy notable? PROD by another editor was removed two weeks ago. P HARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete Indiscriminate list. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete Oh please what next ? Indiscriminate list, can it. ukexpat (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete "ology" means "study of" so this list is merely an extension of dictionary definitions.--Paul McDonald (talk) 17:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete not an encyclopedia article. Basically a list of trivia. Borock (talk) 18:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. That pretty much describes every science known to mankind. Most indiscriminate list I've seen. - Mgm|(talk) 18:40, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Neutral (Merge??). I didn't create this list, I just split it out of the article -logy. For a discussion about this split, see Talk:-logy and Talk:-logy. If you decide to delete, you should consider deleting List of non-sciences ending in -logy as well. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: I wonder how well the distinction between "sciences" and "non-sciences" is being maintained, or can be. I just removed the entry "Escapology, the practice of escaping from restraints or other traps." I wouldn’t call that a science. On the other hand I find theology, known historically as "queen of the sciences," listed among the "non-sciences." That decision lacks historical perspective, if it is not outright POV. If the list survives, I suggest that it be recombined with the "non-sciences" list. — Rob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two etymologies for the suffix -logy (see -logy). The two lists were originally meant to reflect this, but we never found a way of making this clear to the reader. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:28, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I notice that the two lists do not correspond to the etymological distinction. That's another reason to recombine. I'm ready to weigh in: Keep and merge with List of non-sciences ending in -logy. — Rob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 19:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I am not sure that the article needs a list to begin with, of any kind. Does making a list make it more clear than giving several common examples?  (I am guessing not)  A list for either appears to be fairly indescriminate, and once you break apart science and non-science, problematic.  Is theology science?  Astrology?  I certainly see how examples are needed for that article, but a list of all words with that suffix is still indescriminate.  Both of them.    P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 19:37, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't explain my rationale. I find that the list is not "indiscriminate," and I can imagine likely scenarios in which readers would find it useful, e.g., for distinguishing -ology terms that sound similar but have divergent meanings. The list has potential to be more useful than it is, as pointed out in the discussions linked above (by ἀνυπόδητος). — Rob C. alias ᴀʟᴀʀoʙ 20:42, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * While I certainly don't question your motives, that an article is useful or even interesting doesn't pass policy nor serve as arguments in this case. Can you show me a citation or reference that says "words that end in -logy are notable because..." as all lists and articles must establish independent notability (can't be inherited)  Am I right?  I'm very serious, I will be happy to be say I am wrong and withdraw the nomination if someone can clearly explain to me how.  To answer below, I see how a list of phobias or manias is notable, but you can't really compare the two directly.  You can compare phobia and mania in this context fairly, but not "words that end in -logy".  Again, I'm all ears, please point out the policy that says this is the proper use of a list and I will gladly eat crow.    P HARMBOY  ( moo ) ( plop ) 23:49, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge the two lists together in order to remove the science/non-science original research problem. I hasten to point out that this is not at all an "indiscriminate list", a term that applies to lists that provide no information to discriminate between one entry and the next (see WP:INDISCRIMINATE).  Generally, these are lists of blue links or lists of words with nothing to show why they are being grouped together.  Nor is it unencyclopedic.  Lists of phobias, manias, and fields that have the suffix "-logy" are seen in some reference works, such as the "Dunlop Book of Facts" that used to be put out by the same people who did the Guinness Book, and in some almanacs and (as part of a separate table) dictionaries.  The problems that I do see are with sourcing, but that's something that is fixable.  Mandsford (talk) 20:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Its lists like this that make me laugh, but not in a good way.  :(  coccyx bloccyx  (toccyx)  23:12, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both lists. Sheesh. Drmies (talk) 02:05, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Question is Doxology the study of "dox" ? (couldn't resist)--Paul McDonald (talk) 02:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki to wiktionary 70.55.86.100 (talk) 04:29, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Transwiki. Good idea. Should then be linked from -logy. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both lists Merging them is completely indiscriminate; putting a word in one or the other, only slightly less so. Theology properly belongs in the "science" group, for instance, because that group is really "the study of" rather than natural science per se. In any case, the list is really a trivia collection of "those odd words scientists use for their studies." As far as inflicting this on Wiktionary, I see no evidence that they have these kinds of articles. Mangoe (talk) 15:30, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Fails to establish why the "logy" ending is particularly notable. Makes about as much sense as creating an article called "List of months ending in y". 23skidoo (talk) 19:38, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 22:43, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete both. Why is logy an important ending? A merge would not be the best path either for reasons already stated. Undead Warrior (talk) 02:51, 4 November 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.