Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extravolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 delete - Liberatore(T) 15:13, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Extravolution

Relevant policies: WP:V (WP:NEO, WP:RS), WP:VAIN, WP:NFT

"This definition was formulated by D.J. MacLennan in 2006"... and of course, User:Djmac needs to grace Wikipedia with this vanity neologism. Two hits on Google, one of which is the cited "source", a RTF file on a university server that is not exactly reliable. Sandstein 15:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete vanity neologism. JPD (talk) 15:51, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, neologism. Proto||type 15:54, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a vanity neologism. It is certainly a neologism, how can it not be when it is describing a new process? This is a definition of a pre-existing term. It is a useful and appropriate term for the process involved. The only reason I used my own name was because I don't know of anyone else who has defined the term. I'll gladly correct this if necessary.--Djmac 16:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that Wikipedia is meant to cover subjects that are already notable, not assist neologisms on their way to notability. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 16:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete neologism, albeit a nice one. -- Ramanpotential (talk | contribs) 16:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per reasons listed by nom --TBC??? ??? ??? 16:38, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would argue that the subject is already highly notable and being discussed at all levels of society. Is the fact that the term is a neologism a good reason for deleting it?--Djmac 16:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Please read the "relevant policies" linked to above. Sandstein 17:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I have read the policy and realise that neologisms are often (but not always) deleted. However, this subject matter is simply not properly definable without the use of appropriate neologisms. My argument is that this one should be an exception because it properly describes, using sound linguistic roots, a phenomenon which is not otherwise easily describable. --Djmac 17:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
True, but not an argument for inclusion. WP:V states that:
Information on Wikipedia must be reliable. Facts, viewpoints, theories, and arguments may only be included in articles if they have already been published by reliable and reputable sources. Articles should cite these sources whenever possible. Any unsourced material may be challenged and removed.
Which means: You must wait until someone else uses the term in a reliable source, otherwise it's original research and/or speculation, which is also most definitely not allowed on Wikipedia. Sandstein 19:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong delete. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 21:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Strong Delete Not only a neologism, but clearly a failure as such, since no one's picking up on it. Fan1967 00:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete -- WP:NOT a crystal ball, neologism. Haikupoet 02:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I can see that the term isn't getting a great deal of support here, which is disappointing (but thanks to Ramanpotential for agreeing that it is a good neologism). I understand your reasons and see that it is certainly difficult to align this with Wikipedia policy. The argument about a 'failed' neologism is a strange one however. You can't argue that the term is a neologism (which by definition is new and not widely established yet) and then say that it has 'failed'. The idea behind the word is not new either. This is not original research. Just the application of a pre-existing term to an existing (but new) phenomenon. Thank you for your rigorous argument and an interesting introduction to Wikipedia! I'll continue using this word because I don't know of a better term for summing up this phenomenon. Others may feel the same. --Djmac 11:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 19:16, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per above. -- Ritchy 20:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
  • Have today entered a new reference provided by James Greenwald which proves that this word was used in a biological context as early as the 19th century. Therefore 'extravolution' is conclusively not a neologism. It also puts all other reasons for deletion on very shaky ground. My personal philosophy is that deletion of valid and useful data is offensive and destructive. Think twice, or more, about your wanton recommendations to remove this valid article.
  • What you provided is a dictionary definition from 1829, meaning apparently "to roll outwards". Apart from WP:WINAD, biological evolution wasn't even discovered yet in 1829, let alone computers, so this 1829 dicdef has nothing to do with what your neologism is about. Still delete. Sandstein 21:10, 3 April 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.