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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:16, 12 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Eyology

[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This is a neologism that has never really caught on.

It only has about 8300 ghits total - and, while that's not an argument as such, it's very, very low when the only reason to have an article on it is that it was a notable neologism
6 mostly trivial mentions in google books, one of which is actually an OCR error for "phy- (new line) syology"
No news hits
Google Scholar checks find 6, but most appear to be similar OCR errors or typos. (Mainly for "cytology", at a guess.)
It's not even used in the titles of books: a search of WorldCat finds no books; Amazon and Abebooks had similar 0 results.

There is no evidence this was ever a popular term, or even a minimally notable one. This would be a dubious inclusion on Wiktionary, let alone Wikipedia. The previous debate (archived below) was simply mistaken.

It should probably be noted here that this AfD is solely about the article on the neologism; not about the things it's meant to include, at least one of which, iridology, is a notable, if unscientific, diagnostic technique. They have their own articles, which contain far more information than this one. -The Friendly (but dynamically allocated) IP, 86.176.217.241 (talk) 15:16, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, there was a little copyvio (just one sentence), but I had to delete this source from the article while removing the copyvio: http://www.healinggardenjournal.com/articles/0405/mcgill.htm - I think this is the HGJ in the books search, which I suppose goes to show what the few valid results are like. I don't think the rest of the article's copyvio, and I don't think that's a reliable source anyway, but wanted to mention, just so that nothing's concealed. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 16:02, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Utterly non-notable failed neologism. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:14, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no indication this is a notable term in independent reliable sources. Yobol (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Extremely limited use in reliable sources. Far too little to indicate that the neologism has gained any level of acceptance notable enough for inclusion in WP. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 22:48, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:40, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and comments above. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:52, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As above. Neutrality^talk 18:33, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I gave this article the ol' college try a few years back, but this really does look like it would be better redirected to Iridology. That is where Eyeology has pointed for the past six years anyway. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:13, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually kinda hate it when I look up some term I don't know, and get redirected to a page that doesn't mention the term, since I'm left no wiser than I was before about what I was looking up, and this term is so obscure that I'm not really convinced it's notable enough to mention in iridology. But others may disagree, and that's fair enough. 86.176.222.245 (talk) 19:30, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:35, 9 October 2011 (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.