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. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Doorology[edit]

Doorology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doorology appears to be a proposed area of academic study which has not gained any traction. Lars Frers introduced a paper on it at a York U congress. But there is scant sources to support this as something that has gained any academic recognition. The reference [1] provided in the article is from Frers, and as such is not independent of the subject. And inline external link [2] provides a passing mention in coverage about the conference. In my own search for sources, all I could find was [3] which is by Frers. Google Scholar provides nothing to establish this area of study as notable. Whpq (talk) 20:41, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. A 2000 book, The Complete Idiot's Guide to Woodworking‎ calls a section Doorology as a joke, but the study of doors as a scientific endeavor has no practicioners, no sources and needs to be deleted from Wikipedia and human collective memory. Abductive (reasoning) 21:07, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This just amounts to a made-up field. WP:NFT. --Bfigura ^(talk) 22:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.