Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computerology

Computerology

• Keep: As a wiki is a fluid document, one must note these other wiki "-ology" articles which have passed scrutiny:

- Mixology the study or skill of preparing mixed drinks. - Sovietology the study of communist Soviet Union - Kremlinology also the study of the Soviet Union - Japanology the study of Japan - Islamology the study of Islam - Garbology the study of refuse and trash

None of which are listed in major definitive dictionaries or encyclopediae; why should this particular article be singled out for deletion? unsigned

• Keep: Ask a layman what Computerology might be supposed to mean; and it will match the definition in this article. I in fact did, several times and every time they came back with the definition of the science of computers; so I beleive it should remain.

The author does not attempt to classify this entry as an actual word, and makes reference to the fact it is not included in dictionaries nor an official curriculae, although it may be referenced as found in actual use, and then makes reference of those places, even disqualifying it as a term officiated by post-secondary institutions in the statement: "This is an increasingly commonly used term, most people actually beleive that it is an actual description of the computer field, and aren't aware that there is no official "Doctorate in Computerology".

Whilst research on the author shows that they themselves use the term as part of their own company name same author also makes references to all other companies (that I could find) that also make use of same name. One must remember that this is a wiki, and will be updated from time to time by authors beyond the current author's control.

Also quite evident is that while the article is somewhat critical of "elitism" in particular programs the flurry of activity in this particular delete request is also due to mailing list distribution to the same post-secondary culture to which it labels as the original reason for such term not gaining use in post-secondary institutions.

I have often noted that -ology is for some reason reserved for medical and biomedical sciences, although it is not restricted. I must also note that technologist is a legitimate word; and in effect this is based on the same root and latin suffix.

I find it somewhat distasteful that the post-secondary community of the University of New South Wales would take up the fight with such vigor at an article which points out potential elitism in their ranks; and such responses vindicate the author.unsigned

This neologism has Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not for things made up in school one day written all over it. Speedy deletion request was removed by 70.71.0.218. Article was created by Computerology (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (what a surprise). But on a more serious note, this article fails Wikipedia:Verifiability. Until a reputable dictionary or the general public accepts this blatant abuse of the medical -ology suffix (as ironically noted in this article), then I don't see why Wikipedia should entertain this horrid term either. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  (Computer Science student) 17:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: My mistake, -ology isn't quite so "medical" after all. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  18:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: This is an increasingly commonly used term, most people actually beleive that it is an actual description of the computer field, and aren't aware that there is no official "Doctorate in Computerology". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Computerology (talk • contribs) 17:39, 10 July 2006.

• Delete, nonnotable protologism. Two excerpts from the article are all you need:

(1) "Computerology is not an official word listed in most authoritive dictionaries or encyclopedias."; (2) "Will Computerology ever become an official word or school course? Only time will tell in this regard." NawlinWiki 18:06, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete if not something made up in school, then an obscure slang term. --djrobgordon 18:41, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Why this term may not be in use in Wikipedia: because it's getting deleted! - Che Nuevara: ^{Join the Revolution} 19:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. (What's up with the AfdAnons template at the top, though? Did the nominator feel that this nomination was especially likely to be subjected to ballot stuffing or sock puppetry? Seems a little premature.) —Caesura^(t) 19:39, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment I believe neologisms are the number two cause of sock and meat infestations on AfD (number 1 being non-notable web forums and sites, number 3 being new, unsigned bands). The nominator has made an assumption that this discussion will follow its predecessors down that bankrupt route. That's not a bad assumption, per se, and is harmless enough to leave in place all things considered. ➨ ЯEDVERS 19:56, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: I couldn't resist the urge to post this AFD to the University of New South Wales Revues mailing list which shares a large population of computing and medical students so that everyone there could have a laugh. It's just a precaution against any potential meat-puppetry from them. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:21, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Cool, makes sense. Thanks for answering. (To Redvers as well.) —Caesura^(t) 20:57, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per above plus Wikipedia is not a crystal ball--Nick Y. 20:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as per above. Dionyseus 22:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Bigtop (tk|cb|em|ea) 22:24, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom --NMChico24 23:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for reasons self-evident. Danny Lilithborne 01:07, 11 July 2006 (UTC)