Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/-kinesis

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 14:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] -kinesis

Very silly, just a list of words that were invented without any popularity considered. Bleedstupid 22:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Bleedstupid 23:23, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and clean up. Several of these words are important, particularly in biochemistry, and the -kinesis suffix is an interesting one. I agree about deleted the superhero words, though. I may try to do so later this evening. bikeable (talk) 23:49, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
  • That works... I'm just concerned with the silly terms. Popular bio-chem terms are fine of course. The only terms that seem worth keeping are Psychokinesis, Pyrokinesis, and Cytokinesis. Bleedstupid 23:57, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
    • I just reorganized the article, putting the three commonly used terms at top, and all the rest down below. It's just an idea of a way to organize it so it's useful. I would be very comfortable with many of the less common terms (e.g., hypnokinesis, chlorokinesis) being deleted from the list. (whoops, I forgot to sign: bikeable (talk) 05:03, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
• Keep These words are not "invented" at all, but are rather heavily used in the (admittedly highly nonsensical) worlds of paranormal research and science fiction literature. The point is, these are linguistically legitmate uses of the suffix itself, regardless of whether the abilities are real or "silly" in their fictitious or paranormal nature. I see no point in deletion, as these articles will simply spring up as stubs elsewhere, and the -kinesis suffix does deserve an article.--172.154.18.45 00:28, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • They are not used ANYWHERE in paranormal research (with the exception of PK). They are not presented as ficticious words in the article that originate from science fiction literature - they are presented as legitimate scientific words used in research (which they aren't). Even then, find a popular science fiction book that uses the term "umbrakinesis". It's just plain silly. Bleedstupid 00:34, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Simple googling of selected "fictional" terms brings up arrays of conspiracy theorist websites and books expounding on aliens, psychic phenomena the paranormal, and some sort of alleged Unified Field Theory, not to mention various cults. Your issue seems to be one of skepticism, which is entirely understandable, but like it or not, there are message boards dedicated to supposed practitioners of everything from umbrakinesis to faith healers. James Randi would have a field day.--172.154.18.45 00:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Then I challenge you to google the terms in the article and see if you get the same results. These terms should not be grouped in the same category you describe. These terms are not popular IN ANY FIELD. Bleedstupid 00:56, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure what you're proposing. Do you want these to be trasferred to the wikidictionary? Drawing a paralell to other suffix pages, Optophobia — Fear of opening one's eyes, a real but disused term for the highly rare "fear of opening ones eyes," only gathers 657 odd hits on google, and yet is present on the -phobia page. Chronokinesis gets 667 hits, mostly from psychic websites that assume the phenomenon is real. I'm still not sure what we're debating. It's clear that people use these terms as though they were real, no matter how odd or outre. Like the -phobia page, rarity in reality does not preclude or otherwise disprove linguistic legitimacy in the descriptive abstract. --172.154.18.45 01:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Searches in Google:
  • Aerokinesis: 4000 results
  • Atmokinesis: 611 results
  • Audiokinesis: 2930 results (most aren't related to the defintion in this article)
  • Biokinesis: 547 results
  • Chlorokinesis: 4 results (wikipedia only)
  • Chronokinesis: 664 results
  • Cryokinesis: 731 results
  • Echokinesis: 784 results
  • Electrokinesis: 9860 results
  • Gravitokinesis: 42 results
  • Hydrokinesis: 2300 results
  • Hypnokinesis: 19 results
  • Magnetokinesis: 438 results (wikipedia as top hit)
  • Photokinesis: 768 results (unrelated to definition)
  • Terrakinesis: 1410 results (wikipedia as top hit)
  • Thermokinesis: 277 results
  • Umbrakinesis: 137 results
  • Vitakinesis: 843 results
• Compare these results to Psychokinesis (the scientifically accepted term), 226000 results. I'm suggesting that this page be deleted because it's silly. No, I do not think they should be transferred. Bleedstupid 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wikitionary. Durova 01:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary already has -kinesis thank you. Uncle G 08:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• quote from Wiktionary:Criteria for inclusion - "Attested" means verified through 1. Clearly widespread use, 2. Usage in a well-known work, 3. Appearance in a refereed academic journal, or 4. Usage in permanently-recorded media, conveying meaning, in at least three independent instances spanning at least a year.

  These terms don't fit under those guidelines... although I would rather that debate be over there about that instead of on wikipedia. Bleedstupid 01:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

  • "Silly" is throwing me off. Is it that neologistic terminology grates? In this case you've got a legitimate complaint regarding some questionable entries, but, as I learned, even chronokinesis has its real world proponents and seems entitled to it's terminology. Simply remove those that are purely neologistic (ex: chlorokinesis) and let those that have their claimant flesh-and-blood "practictioners" be. I point again to those rare and exotic phobias (which may not appear in medical journals at all) as an indicator of popularity and legitimacy not necessarily being mutually exclusive. --172.154.18.45 01:58, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Yes, neologism sounds exactly like what it is. I didn't know the term you guys used. There are no sources for those terms outside of the sites on the internet (and even then, the terms are VERY sparse: please reconsider and compare the results against the results for Psychokinesis). They are not published in ANY medium. I research psychic phenomenon, and it urks me to see these neologistic terms grouped together with scientific terms. Bleedstupid 02:02, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • (Partitioning for easy editing) But here comes the crux of the debate. When does the ever-changing landscape of psychic and occult terminology stop being neologistic? Some that may have started out that way now have their small corners of legitimized usage in internet communities of claimants. Does usage by a claimant to a psychic ability grant legitimacy? Or is the usage itself indicative of false claims? Should another criterion be used, if at all? It seems to be the malleable properties of language itself that underlie this issue. --172.154.18.45 02:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Yes, that is the main point of debate. If we look at terms used in parapsychology, it is MOSTLY uniform. I propose we stick to terms that have been around for years, didn't originate on the internet, and have been published by multiple parapsychologists. This would eliminate 95% of the terms on that page. Bleedstupid 02:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • Then maybe templated requests for expert opinions are needed here, perhaps even the creation of a "Psychokinetic Abilities in Fiction/Fictional Psychokinetic Abilities" article, which would fall squarly within guidelines and connect with a category here on wikipedia. There are plently of legit articles revolving around fictional tropes as literary institutions, and such an article, linked as a related "See Also" might finally differentiate between discussion as a psychic phenomenon and popular fictional trope.
      • I could care less about where the terms go (whether they're deleted or re-labelled and re-defined), as long as they aren't presented as legit scientific terms that define psychic abilities. If they are presented as fictional, then that's fine. It's the association with science and parapsychology that bothers me. Bleedstupid 02:38, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • But that's the issue. If the diction needs to be changed, re-labelled or redifined, or if disclaimers need be provided, it can be requested or even done by you. Your problems with this page could be solved with something more specific than deletion entire, just make your needs clear. Remember, ideally, this is a page for instances where -kinesis is used as a linguistic suffix, nothing more or less. That in itself is a very broad category, so there must be something that can be done here without taking away from that particular purpose. --172.134.253.16 03:54, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
      • I think we need to seriously consider what qualifies a word on that page... the DC Comics which are sited a lot never use those terms, i.e., they never say "Magneto, with the power of Magnetokinesis". So why have the terms? What is stopping people from creating a term based on any random comic? For example, Powderedtoastkinesis for the popular Powdered Toast Man in Ren and Stimpy. Do you not agree that it's silly to just randomly add -kinesis to some arbitrary prefix to create a word? I propose only to add terms that is widely known that the superhero's possess. I.e., if it was CREATED by DC Comics, and used by them, then I would think that is a good qualifier if it should be added to the page with the DC Comic as the example. Bleedstupid 16:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • In such a case, you may want to solicit aid from the folks at WikiProject Comics in their commons, in determining just how new or how old some of these terms are, and when they are legitimately used. This would go far in determining their verity as literary terms using the -kinesis suffix. A neologism in use for many years would have long since ceased to be so. (Just an amateur's note: ask for assistance from adherants of all publishers, it's not just a Marvel or DC world.) Also, don't forget to cite those reference sources you spoke of if you plan to put disclaimers of standard parapsychological usage versus usage by claimants, and usage in literature. (See the Manual of Style for notes) My main problem with this proposed deletion is the likelihood that this page will simply reincarnate and gradually reform to it's current status quo unless specific guidelines, disclaimers and subarticles are developed. It is part of a node dealing with linguistics, and the base article with the definition will likely be resubmitted after deletion, reopening the door to the issues you are having. It's the nature of open source. Latter EDIT: You may also want to put out a rallying cry to expert opinions on Talk:Psychokinesis and Talk:Parapsychology. Your status as a researcher of psychic phenomena may be helpful there too. --172.132.44.152 22:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary, currently just a list of words. Stifle 00:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Wiktionary already has -kinesis thank you. Uncle G 01:19, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, collection of neologisms. -Sean Curtin 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, because it doesn't harm anything being here and is useful to fantasy and sci-fi writers searching for viable terms for the given abilities; removing it would just be pretentious -Godheval 21:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • it doesn't do any "harm"? if it falls under neologism, then it should be deleted under the guidelines of wikipedia... regardless if you perceive any "harm" from them. Bleedstupid 03:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Wikipedia guidelines provide exceptions to the rule in peculiar cases. (particularly if a neologism could be verified as being widely used in certain circles) This case in particular is contentious, perhaps because the suffix itself is genuinely notable for its frequent usage in the coining of neologisms. It's rather unique in that way. Also, an article is usually only deleted entirely if it is named for a neologism, which this one isn't. --172.171.98.229 08:10, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
• Delete, neologisms. Incognito 23:51, 18 January 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.