Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roadology

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. NW (Talk) 16:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Roadology[edit]

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

Non-notable term, only one reliable source which pertains to Silk Roadology only. Triadian (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's just downright wrong from top to bottom. The study of the relationship of roads to development is, simply, one facet of human geography, which deals in issues such as ribbon development. It's even mis-representing the source, which isn't describing any sort of "roadology" at all, contrary to the article, but is mentioning (not even describing, note) "Silk Roadology", a nonce coinage for the study of the Silk Road, in the title of an institute for studying the Silk Road. Uncle G (talk) 05:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Serious study of roads is covered by human geography and social studies, like Uncle G says. Amateur study of roads is called many things, such as being a roadgeek, road enthusiast, or member of WP:USRD ;) but nobody really uses the term "roadology". —Scott5114 ↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 09:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sounds unreal. Dough4872 (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My first thought was about road geeks, but this seems to be entirely unrelated. Sounds more of a neologism. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 00:08, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If it were a real field of study persued by academics, it would be worthy of an article. There are lots of academics who might study roads, I'd economic and environmental historians to the list, but there's really no such thing as a roads scholar. And yes I made this comment just to post that awful pun. I'll go away now. --Sancho Mandoval (talk) 01:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Believe it or not, we Roads Scholars really do exist, my friend. =) --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 03:58, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Thryduulf (talk) 09:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/REdirect to Odology (Greek odos - road) -- I am sure there must be a proper word for the study of roads, but this title is a neological bastard, created in Japan by amalgamating an English word (road) with a Greek derived ending. It seems that there is one, though its current article is only a stub and I am not sure that it is not also a neologism, though a lawfully begotten one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Odology looks like another candidate for deletion... --NE2 19:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I concur with that. I'm on it. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:52, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has international useage. FieldMarine (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it really hasn't. It has one usage, as a nonce coinage, in the name of one organization, the Research Center for Silk Roadology. And that name is not even Roadology but Silk Roadology. There is no actual subject denoted here, because this isn't even a recognized word to denote a subject in the first place. Even the aforementioned Research Centre doesn't deal in this. It studies the Silk Road, as the name suggests, and as the source that you cited outright says. Uncle G (talk) 01:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. JohnCD (talk) 11:43, 4 October 2009 (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.