Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ennuitheism

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. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ennuitheism[edit]

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

Non notable neologism. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This fails WP:GNG - there are no sources on Google Books, News, or Scholar. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 12:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article itself states term is NEO and has a single not-yet-published source. At best, this could be TOOSOON, but basically it's a non-notable neologism with no sources. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:03, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:31, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:32, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's fairly evident who Drbulbulia (talk · contribs) is. Dr Bulbulia this is an encyclopaedia, not a publisher of first instance. You wouldn't walk into the library at Victoria University and start writing your new and as yet unpublished ideas directly into the encyclopaedias there. Please apply the same standards of academic good practice here. Get your idea published, peer reviewed, and acknowledged and written about by other scholars. Then approach encyclopaedias. I strongly recommend reading what the other Victoria University has to say about non-peer-reviewed self-publication, as well as Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on the subject of original research. Uncle G (talk) 14:16, 25 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we interpret that as at !vote to delete :) ? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 14:37, 25 February 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.