Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Taxologist (2nd nomination)

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. I'll be creating a redirect to Taxonomy, though in my personal capacity and not as part of the close ~ Amory (u • t • c) 13:54, 4 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taxologist[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

WP:DICDEF of a neologistic job title. This does not feature any meaningful context to make it an encyclopedia article rather than a dictionary definition, or any independent reliable source analysis about it as a thing -- virtually all of the footnotes here are blogs and public relations WP:SPIP from companies that do tax technology work, not independent reliable source media outlets. This is written and referenced differently enough from the first version to not qualify for immediate speedy as a recreation of deleted content, but it still doesn't represent a significant improvement over the first version. Bearcat (talk) 20:29, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's no more than a term invented by a tax and accounting firm for publicity purposes. Until the wider world has taken notice of the word that can be substantiated with sources outside of the tax industry, it should not have its own article per WP:NOTNEO. Taxology is actually another word for taxonomy - [1][2] used since the 19th century (a taxologist is therefore a taxonomist), it is therefore quite wrong to usurp the definition an older word still in use [3][4] without showing that the new definition has gain wider currency outside of these companies. Redirect to taxonomy is therefore another possibility. Hzh (talk) 22:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this, ok i do agree that this term was coined by a company. However, if you want to redirect the term, how about making it a section in the Taxonomy page, so that my efforts can also be saved because it has already been edited too much. ThanksTimHerzl (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, and do not merge. It would be inappropriate to include an entry for it in Taxonomy, which contains a disambiguating list of various different types of taxonomies, as "Taxologist" (as defined by this article) is not a form of taxonomy. While I can empathize with being frustrated about losing work that you've done on Wikipedia, that in itself is not a reason to preserve information about non-notable subjects. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:NOTNEO and WP:NOTADVERTISING. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:03, 3 April 2019 (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.