Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of non-sciences ending in -logy

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. Cirt (talk) 00:14, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of non-sciences ending in -logy

Indiscriminate list. Deletion was discussed in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sciences ending in -logy (which result was "delete") but by an oversight was not formally nominated at that time. Mangoe (talk) 10:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:28, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per the consensus in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sciences ending in -logy -- the outcome here will be no different. I was just about to nominate this myself. coccyx bloccyx_(toccyx) 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per nom, should have been deleted last time, and a very silly article. Firebat08 (talk) 19:14, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Placing eulogy and theology (yes, as non-science) in one bucket... peppered with cosmetology... a mortician's idea of necrology? speedy delete and ban re-creation. NVO (talk) 19:24, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball delete. --Explodicle (T/C) 20:49, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary 70.55.86.100 (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As discussed for the previous deletion, I see no evidence that Wiktionary has this sort of article. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 03:52, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per same reasons given for the other article: no indication why "-logy" is in any way notable. I think my previous comment included something like: makes as much sense as creating a list of months with a Y in them or something like that. Same applies here. 23skidoo (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. WP:BEANS. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:10, 5 November 2008 (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.