Knowledge

:Articles for deletion/Nousics - Knowledge

Source 📝

125: 52:. There are absolutely zero hits on Google outside of Knowledge mirrors. This was obviously made up by the creator and only substantial editor to the article. 132:
Apparently either a hoax or an incredibly obscure neologism by an incredibly obscure "philosopher"; I'm leaning toward the former.
17: 205: 168: 92: 87: 96: 229: 36: 228:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
79: 35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
57: 139: 194: 190: 211: 173: 144: 83: 61: 193:. Considering there's no apparent sources out there, there's no way to rescue this article. —/ 29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
75: 67: 163: 53: 133: 153:
I can't find any online or book sources talking about it. Therefore, it seems to fail
182: 49: 113: 158: 154: 186: 222:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
157:. It's not notable, if it's even an actual field of study. 120: 109: 105: 101: 39:). No further edits should be made to this page. 232:). No further edits should be made to this page. 8: 7: 24: 18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion 181:; once you remove the blatant 1: 189:, what you have left fails 249: 212:23:47, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 174:23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 145:22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC) 62:00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC) 225:Please do not modify it. 32:Please do not modify it. 208: 200: 183:original research 240: 227: 204: 198: 171: 166: 161: 142: 136: 123: 117: 99: 44:The result was 34: 248: 247: 243: 242: 241: 239: 238: 237: 236: 230:deletion review 223: 209: 169: 164: 159: 140: 134: 119: 90: 74: 71: 37:deletion review 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 246: 244: 235: 234: 217: 215: 214: 203: 176: 130: 129: 70: 65: 42: 41: 25: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 245: 233: 231: 226: 220: 219: 218: 213: 207: 201: 197: 192: 188: 184: 180: 177: 175: 172: 167: 162: 156: 152: 149: 148: 147: 146: 143: 137: 127: 122: 115: 111: 107: 103: 98: 94: 89: 85: 81: 77: 73: 72: 69: 66: 64: 63: 59: 55: 51: 47: 46:Speedy delete 40: 38: 33: 27: 26: 19: 224: 221: 216: 195: 191:WP:NOTDICDEF 178: 150: 131: 50:blatant hoax 45: 43: 31: 28: 135:Orange Mike 54:Someguy1221 187:bioethics 126:View log 199:endaliv 93:protect 88:history 76:Nousics 68:Nousics 179:Delete 151:Delete 121:delete 97:delete 124:) – ( 114:views 106:watch 102:links 48:as a 16:< 155:WP:N 141:Talk 110:logs 84:talk 80:edit 58:talk 206:Δ's 185:on 165:meh 160:Tim 138:| 210:/ 202:// 112:| 108:| 104:| 100:| 95:| 91:| 86:| 82:| 60:) 196:M 170:! 128:) 118:( 116:) 78:( 56:(

Index

Knowledge:Articles for deletion
deletion review
blatant hoax
Someguy1221
talk
00:03, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Nousics
Nousics
edit
talk
history
protect
delete
links
watch
logs
views
delete
View log
Orange Mike
Talk
22:21, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
WP:N
Tim
meh
!
23:27, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
original research
bioethics
WP:NOTDICDEF

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.