Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omphalology


 * 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Omphalology
This appears to be a neologism unique to an unknown medical journal. It doesn't seem to be used on the Internet except on Wikipedia mirrors and silly message board discussions. —Guanaco 22:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete No PubMed hits. Thatcher131 03:00, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Wiktionary, unless it's not real, in which case delete. It's right in the article that it's a facetious usage.  Peter Grey 07:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Facetious it is, but also useful, just as the word widget is useful. Michael Hardy 20:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Would reconsider pending reliable sources. -- Krash (Talk) 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NEO. Stifle 11:49, 2 March 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.