Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Environetics
- 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 of the debate was Delete. Deathphoenix 22:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Environetics[edit]
Neologism. This is my academic field, and I have never heard the term. It appears to be a neologism from a class at MIT: [1] This term is not used in the field. The hits in google scholar (14 total) are for products by companies with the apparently popular name "environetics". There are no hits for the word in Environmental Health Perspectives, the best-known journal of the field of environmental health (which encompasses toxicology, environmental epidemiology of toxic exposures, and logical issues of causation deriving from environmental exposures). I hate to rain on the parade of anyone in this field, but I don't see any sense in confusing people with unused terminology made up by a professor for reasons which are very unclear. I would consider supporting a redirect to Environmental health; otherwise, Delete. bikeable (talk) 19:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, and BJAODN the image. Stifle 13:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 22:22, 17 February 2006 (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.