Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sciencology


 * 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. Mailer Diablo 17:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Sciencology
Apparent neologism, not found at dictionary.com, 32 Google hits. Delete. - Mike Rosoft 18:07, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's a valid word. Dictionary.com is not extensive enough to include it.   Visit your local library or consult an expert in the language.  I'm behind the move to Wiktionary Lirter 18:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep Try visiting the Lydbury Grammar Clinic. !!!! Lirter 18:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. No proof of notability can be found, author refuses to provide it. (|--   UlT i MuS  ( U 18:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not true, I provided you with Scienceology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lirter (talk • contribs)
 * Is superjesus.com an authoritative source? --Xrblsnggt 19:45, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of this being anything but a neologism. Nothing on ISI web of science or in the online Oxford English Dictionary. Reference to Lydbury Grammer Clinic leads to this thread, with no evidence at present.  Delete per WP:NEO. --TeaDrinker 18:34, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:BOLLOCKS --Xrblsnggt 18:42, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. Lack of entry in OED means it is either too new to be in widespread use or it exists only as something made up in school one day Eddie.willers 19:12, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Artw 19:13, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, don't transwiki, per Eddie Willers. David | Talk 19:14, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, unverifiable, neologism, WP:NFT. -- The Anome 19:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism not in wide use. --MCB 20:06, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete before search engines start quoting this nonsense and spreading it around. All but three of the Google hits are apparent misspellings of "Scientology". One of the primary hits refers to "why it's called 'Scientology' and not 'sciencology', illustrating the status of this made-up word ... Kenosis 20:50, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong Delete hoaxalicious. Danny Lilithborne 23:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Obvious redirect to scientology. --SPUI (T - C) 16:03, 17 July 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.