Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropecology

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. j⚛e decker ^talk 22:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropecology[edit]

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

The article itself states why this word isn't notable: "“Anthropecology”, a new term introduced in the world of Environmental Science". There are sources in the article, yes, but they are only journals that use the word, not coverage about the word itself. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 07:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete My !vote is based on reading the article. The claim is made that this is a new branch of science, but the statement has no inline citation that allows me to WP:V that this is not WP:OR. Nor is there a source for a claim that a specific individual coined the term. Unscintillating (talk) 16:21, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO $Erebus Morgaine (Talk)$ 17:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NEO. The term appears only in (1) a handful of uncited papers and books by Dwivedi and (2) a one-line mention from Russia claiming it is pseudoscience. Not notable. -- 101.119.15.121 (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2014 (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.