Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Phoeniciology

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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Phoeniciology

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

This seems to be a made up word. I can't find any reliable sources using it to discuss the topic it claims to define. Doug Weller talk 14:08, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm leaning towards delete here, but I found a link to some archaeology website that shows what this word means and how it's used. May be helpful. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts
- @UNSC Luke 1021: The text on that page is almost identical to the article, so either our article is a copyvio, or "Greatarchaeology" copied Wikipedia. I'd say the latter is more likely since it doesn't seem like a very reputable website, and our article has existed in more or less the same state since 2006. – Joe (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Despite the word 'phoeniciology' actually existing, I can only find one website that uses the term without directly sourcing or copypasting from the Wikipedia article itself. Not worth keeping something when we can't vouch for it's existence. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts

Note: This debate has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per WP:NEO. Note that none of the other articles at Category:Area studies by ancient history are not verifiable. Smmurphy^(Talk) 23:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Phoenician Studies - no need to delete a long-standing page and its history which refers to a notable, existing thing under the wrong name when no article under the right name exists. Smmurphy^(Talk) 16:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable neologism. I can't find any mention apart from Wikipedia mirrors. – Joe (talk) 23:45, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 0 hits on GoogleScholar. It's not a notable field, yet. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @Chris troutman: It isn't that it's not a notable field, it's that it already has a name, eg Oxford University's "Oxford Centre for Phoenician and Punic Studies". You'll get a very large number of hits from reliable sources with "Phoenician studies". I wouldn't support it as a redirect either. It's a made up word which a search strongly suggests didn't exist until this article was created. Doug Weller talk 18:57, 10 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a NEOlogism. Phoenician and Punic Studies is certainly a field of scholarship, but I am not sure that it needs an article, as distinct from ones on the history and/or archaeology of the area. The difficulty with it, is that the cities settled by Pheonician colonists were urban and often remain so. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:44, 15 January 2017 (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.