Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eyology

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was keep. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 04:58, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Eyology

Delete Possible neologism (not found in any dictionary). Revolución 03:03, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I thought so too, but then I googled it. Also a dictionary entry. Seems legit. - Barfooz (talk) 03:06, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- "Explore-dictionary" is not really a dictionary. It's a mirror of Wikipedia. Revolución 03:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Also this seems to describe the same thing as sclerology and iridology, both of which get many more hits than this. Revolución 03:36, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Your first point is valid. However, if your second point is true, then this page is doing exactly what it should be doing because it can't be a redirect. - Barfooz (talk) 03:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a valid term, then mention Eyology on iridology. If that doesn't prompt complaints then keep. Cannot be a redirect if eyology can refer to either iridology and sclerology--Absurdist 03:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Utterly ugly neologism. Sciences don't form their names with half English and half Greek roots. Geogre 11:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Understanding someone's personality by scrutinising their eyes? That's about as much a science as astrology. And it seems to be a neologism. AlexTiefling 13:31, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia is not a science publication. It's a publication about everything, so everything from chemistry to alchemy belongs here. And the google searches prove that it's not a neologism. --Barfooz (talk) 04:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, can't be redirected. Google results indicate notable use. Ugliness is not a reaon for deletionKappa 20:59, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Borderline. Could do with more peer reviewed sources. Megan1967 05:13, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Uglines" and "Prettyness" are inherently Point-of-View. Who says that sciences have to adhere to some archaic notion of linguistic purity ? The term 'eyology' is on target to encompass disciplines of study that have to do with the eyes. 68.107.99.243 15:34, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.