Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oligarchologist


 * 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. Big Dom  22:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Oligarchologist

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Unnotable field of study. Phearson (talk) 18:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. Needs to be improved as well. Wilbysuffolk (talk) 18:10, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as not notable. There appears to be exactly one Google Book hit mentioning the word "oligarchology".  Surprisingly, only 7 Google hits.  Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 19:44, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete as non-notable neololgism. I'm somewhat surprised it wasn't a word coined in a bar last evening, actually... Carrite (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong Keep The article is most definitely notable. There are numerous authors and broadcasters that can be considered as oligarchologists (Alex Jones, David Icke, Alan Watt etc.) The article needs to be expanded. Deleting the article will not further this goal and will diminish wikipedia as a result. Flaviusvulso (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Then please supply some reliable sources that verify that it meets the notability criterion. Hyperdoctor Phrogghrus (talk) 22:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Delete or userfy per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:HAMMER. I could find exactly one news source mentioning oligarchology.  That is not enough for WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. It's all very well to say that various people "can be considered as" oligarchologists; what is needed is evidence of use and discussion of the term to satisfy WP:NEO: "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." JohnCD (talk) 18:48, 24 March 2011 (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.