Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mociology

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. Sandstein 09:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mociology

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

Appears to be entirely invented; has no sources and never had any. It needs TNT at least. Jytdog (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. The lack of sources is evident. The only page I can find referring to this is wiktionary:mociology, which appears to use a fake reference (see https://www.wired.com/2006/06/jargon-watch-51/ - there are no other Jargon Watches for Feb) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyali (talk • contribs)

Delete per WP:ONEDAY. The only source that I found that even touched on this was this Mother Jones article, which briefly mentioned it in one sentence. Fails WP:N Joshualouie711 (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there appears to be some WP:CIRC going on here, too; the first (and only?) paper GScholar offers references this article. — Gamall Wednesday Ida (t · c) 17:01, 23 December 2016 (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.