Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apithology

Apithology

was proposed for deletion. This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was

Delete. Idiosyncratic, neologism. Only gets three Google hits google:apithology and based on the user name who created the article Emrgnc (Special:Contributions/Emrgnc), it suggests that the user is the author of the Google articles. Article as written is also too much like a dictionary definition. Lexor|Talk 11:51, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

• Delete. Original research. --Edcolins 12:00, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Concur with Edcolins. jni 13:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. Sander123 13:14, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. --*drew 13:23, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete. At best a candidate for wiktionary but even them its a neologism anyway Sexual maniac 13:24, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete: Neologism that could be about bee keeping (apis). Another one of the mememetameme people. Geogre 14:21, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Wow. A neologism based on original research. Double delete whammy. Inky 21:02, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• Delete (unless evidence presented of reasonably widespread use). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 23:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)
• I have been round medical stuff and places a LOT, and I know Ancient Greek well. I have never heard of a science called apithology. His Greek is badly faulty. Flush it down the sluice. Anthony Appleyard 11:39, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like other '/delete' pages is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion or on the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.