Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientician

 This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was delete as neologism.

Scientician
An intelligently written article about politically corrupted/convenient scientists; I don't take issue with what it says. The main trouble is that this is a neologism -- as the author admits. For a neologism, it seems at first to do fairly well at Google, with over five hundred hits. However, it's clear that many of these hits are for a nonce-word welding "scientist" and "mathematician" or other whimsical applications. A search for "scientician" plus "ethical" gets a mere 41 hits.

The term does seem to be useful, for, say, that rare kind of biologist whose opinions are conveniently compatible with those of the Bush administration and its plutocrat paymasters. But the term barely exists. So hang on until "scientician" with this meaning gets at least five thousand hits; if/when that happens, reconsider.

(Incidentally, scientists who are convenient for or corrupted by governments seem to me to be no different to those who are convenient for or corrupted by tobacco interests, etc., even when those interests lack government support. But I digress.) -- Hoary 08:12, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC) [Wording slightly tweaked 08:28, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)]


 * I'd googled too, but hadn't looked further than the fact that the word was reasonably common. Good job on the further checking, delete. --W(t) 08:15, 2005 Jun 19 (UTC)
 * I've first heard this word in a Simpsons episode. Can it be verified to have originated there? If so then merge to List of made-up words in The Simpsons. Radiant_ &gt;|&lt; 10:12, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)
 * Like Radiant, I remember this from on old episode of the Simpsons (the one where Lisa becomes a vegetarian, if memory serves) and I certainly got the idea they made it up. If that is true, then redirect, as per Radiant. -R. fiend 15:16, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism. Interesting read, though. &mdash; mark &#9998; 15:55, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to the aforementioned Simpons article. Celestianpower 16:22, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * rewrite by Hoary --MarSch 16:39, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Er, you rang? What, why, how? -- Hoary 01:49, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * I think your nomination text clearly explains the different meanings this neologism can have and I think that it would make a good stub. Since you have already researched this I thought that it would be easy for you to do the rewrite. You can almost copy the nomination. :) --MarSch 14:09, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Ah. But precisely because I find this to be a neologism (or a set of homophonous neologisms), I don't think it is (they are) worthy of an article.-- Hoary 14:16, 2005 Jun 20 (UTC)
 * Keep if further verified - use in academia, media etc?[[Image:Flag_of_Australia.svg|15px]] Cyberjunkie   TALK  18:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia isn't place to invent new words. Pavel Vozenilek 21:07, 19 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete, because the article presents a logical neck-snapper - scienticians are bending their views in favor of the government, and this is illegal in most countries? Quickie civics lesson: the government makes the laws. -- BD2412 talk 10:04, 2005 Jun 24 (UTC)
 * but it isn't above the law --MarSch 15:43, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * Wha? No neck-snapper here...governments break their own laws (or more often, laws made by earlier administrations) ALL THE TIME. Lance
 * Delete. Neologism. Jayjg (talk) 21:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
 * ''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.