Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spectronomy

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. JForget 01:07, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spectronomy

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

I cannot find a source that uses this term in some sort of paranormal context. Requests for reliable and pertinent citations have gone unanswered and I wonder if the author of this article may have invented the term. Pdcook (talk) 21:19, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also support deleting this article. None of the citations provide support evidence for the use of the term 'spectronomy'. The most frequent web hits for spectronomy are all as mis-spellings of the term spectrometry. Without additional supporting documentation from the author, I am skeptical of this usage. ronningt (talk) 22:40, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note: the author of this article has requested deletion as well. See the article's talk page. Pdcook (talk) 14:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this could be turned into a disambiguation page. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A disambiguation page for what? We've established that spectronomy is probably a mis-spelling of spectrometry/spectroscopy. Perhaps a redirect from spectronomy to spectroscopy. Pdcook (talk) 17:16, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It doesn't exist. K602 (talk) 08:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence. - Altenmann >t 22:24, 9 November 2009 (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.