Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pantology

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was transwiki to Wiktionary. —Korath (Talk) 22:08, Mar 12, 2005 (UTC)

Pantology

Apparently rather more than a theory of everything. But an orphan deadend. A search suggests it may be confused with the science of trousers or pantomimes or even forensics in the JFK assasination [1]. An article which looks incapable of giving any positive examples of something is a useless dictionary definition.--Henrygb 01:38, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup and expand. Megan1967 02:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as long as it can be cleaned up and expanded as soon as possible. Zzyzx11 04:28, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Isn't Wikipedia a pantology? Isn't a Grand Unified Theory a pantology? Anyway I think this should probably be a dictionary definition. — RJH 18:13, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• No vote, but kudos to Henrygb for coming up with "the science of trousers". Meelar (talk) 20:05, Feb 27, 2005 (UTC)
• Well, it's not in my dictionary (Webster's New American) so I'm guessing that it's either a neologism or jargon specific to philosophy. The current version is a mere definition. I don't see any way to expand it. [m:Transwiki|]]. (I'll change my vote if someone substantially expands it before the discussion period ends.) Rossami (talk) 07:38, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Its apparently listed in the 1913 Websters Revised Unabridged Dictionary, so I doubt it's a neologism. I also see several uses of the word in reference to authoritative works on particular fields. E.g. forensic pantology. The word is also apparently used in reference to a clothing line. :D — RJH 18:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Concur with Rossami, Transwiki. Radiant! 10:26, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. A sentence from the article says it all: "Pantology is difficult to more clearly define because it is a little addressed subject and so expansive that it seems beyond the stretch of current human development of knowledge." Therefore, can't be expanded and not encyclopedic. —Brim 17:10, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete Not even a dicdef.--Audiovideo 23:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
• Several different online dictionaries found it, Transwiki to Wiktionary. DaveTheRed 00:55, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. The Recycling Troll 09:56, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary. I too initially thought it meant "study of trousers", but I found it's a real word that really does mean "work of universal information" ([2]). -- Brhaspati (talk, contribs) 05:12, 2005 Mar 2 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.