- 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. Rlendog (talk) 18:22, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Biogeonergydeterminism method (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Highly dubious notability (0 Google hits, 0 JSTOR hits, 0 Google Scholar hits). Author of this article appears to be the same author of the method it discusses. Psychonaut (talk) 14:09, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National security hermeneutics. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:28, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Very strong delete. Wikipedia is not a place to publish your original research, novel definitions, or the like, and the creator of this article is on a spree with it. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natsecurology for two more examples. —C.Fred (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Non-notable neologism (at least not in English, maybe it's a translation). Conflict of interest, untranslated section of Cyrillic text, lack of context or explanation, whiff of pseudo-science. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Ouch. How many formal and informal reasons are there to delete this? FeatherPluma (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2012 (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.