Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neomorph

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. —Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 02:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neomorph

Neomorph (in terms of linguistics) is an unrecognized neologism; it's in no dictionary and google scholar brings up no results on the term in relation to linguistics. Nothing is cited to back up claims. AEuSoes1 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC) AEuSoes1 06:08, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Comment - for my part, all I can tell is that the article's creator follows the usual pattern that is seen in hoax articles. The nominator here appears to have some pretty substantial knowledge of linguistics. I hesitate to vote this far outside my expertise, but if I had to choose, it'd probably be delete. My Alt Account 07:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 13:39, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• This is one of several linguistics articles that the author, Nimic86 (talk • contribs), has just added. Xe asserts on Talk:Neophone that "There's always plenty of room for brand new terms which serve perfectly useful purposes.". Wikipedia isn't for promoting brand new linguistics concepts that one has just made up. And this is one such. There are no sources that describe this as a concept in linguistics.

  A neomorph is a concept in genetics. See Kiss E, Heszky LE, Gyulai G, Horvath Z, Csillag A. (1991). "Neomorph and leaf differentiation as alternative morphogenetic pathways in soybean tissue culture". Acta Biol Hung 42 (4): 313–321. PMID 1841482. for example. It is, to quote Webster 1913, a "structure, part, or organ developed independently, that is, not derived from a similar structure, part, or organ, in a preexisting form".

  This article used to redirect to mutation. It's debatable whether that is strictly the correct place, given what Webster 1913 and Abraham D. Krikorian and Liisa Kaarina Simolasays (Febuary 1999). "Totipotency, somatic embryogenesis, and Harry Waris (1893–1973)". Physiologia Plantarum 105 (2): 347. DOI:10.1034/j.1399-3054.1999.105221.x. both say. Either revert to the redirect or delete. Uncle G 15:12, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original research. Djcartwright 19:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, OR, neologism. My Alt Account 19:23, 11 September 2006 (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.