Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Misanthropology

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misanthropology[edit]

Entirely OR -- no basis for any of the claims made in the article--it is entirely an obscure neologism, not a real area of scientific study Nick^talk 01:44, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete As per a nominator. The "study" of misanthropology does not exist. It isn't entirely OR because it is mostly based upon one clever usage of the term by a literary critic in a journal essay from 1996. It still isn't notable in the least, and if one googles the term several different "clever usages" come up and none of them have any serious relevance to the social sciences even though the entry creator keeps linking the entry to others like Psychology, and Sociology.PelleSmith 01:52, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Nick and PelleSmith. Ford MF 04:07, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per PelleSmith. The term seems to be more of a sniglet. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 07:29, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Per above, I am not sure a literary journal is a valid source to cite the for an anthropological field. --Infrangible 13:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whilst I do not have access to the literary journal article myself, the terminology does seem to be somewhat of a neologism. Furthermore, it seems that the references given are not sufficient to justify this as anything but original research. I was also unable to find any serious reliable sources for such a "proposed study" when trawling through the Google results. Will (aka Wimt) 02:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Based on my experience in the field, and a google search just to be sure, I can't find any evidence that the Carpenter book the author cited led to (or reflects) any widespread use of this term in anthropology, either. WP:NOR, WP:NOTE. Zenauberon 05:36, 6 June 2007 (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.