Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Visualistics

: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. postdlf (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

=[[Visualistics]]=

:{{la|Visualistics}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|Visualistics}})

Non-notable neologism. Orange Mike | Talk 00:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Delete Just wow. The first line of the article says what the word is "supposed to mean". Bad form aside, nom is correct in the term being something someone made up recently and isn't notable, common or much of anything else at this point. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
Delete per WP:BALL, Dennis Brown and nom. —Abhishek ^{Talk to me} 02:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 13:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:00, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

This is a poorly written unreferenced article on a non-notable neologism. We need not have it. LadyofShalott 16:07, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
NOTICE - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Medical Visualistics. I also just restored all the AfD and other notices, which the s.p.a. author had removed. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)--Orange Mike | Talk 20:16, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

: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.