Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Educology
Nominator here. I would like to draw attention to . My emphasis: ''"For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals—even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive '''significant''' coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.... is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced '''extensively''', and in a serious and reliable manner, by '''major publications''' that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers."'' All the references to educology both in the article and this discussion so far seem to be (1) by its promulgators, (2) obscure papers that are ''not'' 'extensive' discussions in 'major publications', (3) a few foreign usages of the word, which may simply be what 'education studies' is called in that language, not referring to the ideas of Steiner et al.; and/or at least some of which appear to be independent inventions of this neologism (such as http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-YSJG201501006.htm this one). If anyone doubts that educology is a fringe field, I point out that it claims to be ''"the study of education,"'' but that is already covered by educational sciences which ''"seek to describe, understand, and prescribe educational policy and practice"'' and pedagogy, the ''"theory and practice of education."'' As a thought experiment, if we were to  but keep the article and rewrite it, what would we say about it? |Reliable sources do not recognize the existence of the field. The fact we now have 3 |SPAs showing up on this discussion makes this seem to be a clear case of 
— User:Crossroads1, 21:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Stance: comment
Cited policy: WP:NFRINGE||WP:TNT||WP:RS||WP:SPA||WP:ADVOCACY (Wikipedia:Fringe theories)