Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Palaeopodiatry

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. Tone 15:56, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Palaeopodiatry

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

Appears to be a case of spam, there are sources for this "Palaeopodiatry" out there but none seem to meet WP:RS. Marcusmax(speak) 03:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Call it a dictionary definition or a Non Notable Neologism.... Carrite (talk) 05:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Looks like spam to me. Truthsort (talk) 05:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Nothing on Google news or Google Books, one minor hit on Google Scholar. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:18, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's spam in its current form, but is the topic notable? I can't find any reliable sources that demonstrate that it is. It's used around the blogosphere a bit, but it doesn't seem to be in wide-spread (or any) use in reliable sources.P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 20:22, 22 August 2010 (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.