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 redirect to Nephrologist. –Juliancolton ^Tropical ^Cyclone 00:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dialytician[edit]

This article is poorly written and unverifiable. An editor has expressed concern that it is an outright hoax and I have not been able to find anything to disprove this. Neither of the references provided actually use the term (at least not in the parts that can be read for free). Googling seems to turn up nothing but copies of the Wikipedia page itself. The author has not contributed for some time. If it is not a hoax then it is probably a non-notable neologism. DanielRigal (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete--if Google turns up nothing, and the OED doesn't have it (it doesn't), then it doesn't exist, as far as I'm concerned. And the article is more polemic than encyclopedic anyway. Drmies (talk) 18:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
turn into a redirect to Nephrologist. Exists [1] [2] But not a widely used term and would just be mentioned in the existing nephrology article. Sticky Parkin 19:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
redirect to Nephrologist. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nephrologist, per above. Insufficient content/sources to support a separate article (as yet). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 12:49, 4 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nephrologist. Yes, I'll jump on the redirect bandwagon. The term does exist, barely. Tim Ross (talk) 22:07, 7 January 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.