Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sinusology


 * 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. JForget 01:21, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Sinusology

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

Essay, original research, all based on a single handbook produced by a non-scientist which only gets one Google hit. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:40, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nom, this is not encyclopedic.  Triplestop  x3  21:41, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete: Per nom, the article is gibberish and hardly readable. It seems more like a hoax than anything else.  I'm googling to see if I can come up with anything.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Funny how this article was just created and it already shows up on this website. Also, the article author has copied the article to his user page.--TParis00ap (talk) 21:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually the User page has been here for over a year. I've MFD'd it.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * When I wrote this and showed you, it linked to the article which had just been created. It seems that website is under development and the author changed the link.  Probobly due to his article being AfDd.--TParis00ap (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete: Advertising/promotion. Original research. Also inaccurate: sinusology was not created by the author. Take a look at Google scholar. --Sophitessa (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NONSENSE, WP:OR --> RUL3R *flaming 15:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete both the article and User:Sinusology as promotional and not notable. A quick search online has revealed absolutely zero news items, no legitimate secondary sources, and no relevant scholarly works. Bearian (talk) 19:39, 5 August 2009 (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.