Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Earthology

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. Deleted per author request at on their talk page Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Earthology

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

unsourced WP:Neologism. Nothing found on google to match this definition. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 20:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no sources cited in the article, and I can find no sources that support any such idea, let alone the simplistic explanations of other subjects that the article also gives. This is original research, plain and simple: a completely novel concept being made up directly in Wikipedia by a Wikipedia editor. The obvious redirect target is Earthology Records. It's also the title of the second album by the Whitefield Brothers (one of several pseudonyms of Jan Weissenfeldt and Max Weissenfeldt). But since we don't have an article on them yet …. Uncle G (talk) 22:15, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Clearly an essay or a personal reflection, and I have not been able to find any sources that support importance or notability for such a concept. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral, though I have found One book, one institute using the term, and one site with its definition..also an urban dictionary entry, the article itself remains incomprehensive in its present state, may be requires rework by someone knowledgeable in the field. --Ekabhishek^talk 03:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Each of those seems to be talking about something different to each other - and none of them seems to be the same as the article. noq (talk) 06:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

One of those is (openly) fictional. —Tamfang (talk) 07:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, obvious nonsense. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the entire article is gibberish. It makes no sense, nothing asserted as fact appears to be true, and the article utterly fails to explain its concept in a meaningful or intelligible way. My first impression is that it's a hoax with no logical purpose other than to sound complicated. Some caution is due the author, who seems to be offended that we're questioning his ability to communicate in English. He has made possibly useful contributions to articles he believes to be connected with his name, although I've had to revert most of his edits to one article, as they were based largely on an outdated source that speculated rather oddly on the origin of that name. P Aculeius (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete. Author has now requested deletion. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 17:07, 26 August 2012 (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.