Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philopaideia

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 discussion was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Philopaideia

Made-up word, 0 google hits. WP:NEO applies. Fan-1967 22:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

  • Note: Based on my high school Greek, the definition is dead wrong. Fan-1967 00:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - Dicdef. BlueValour 22:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nom. DarthVader 23:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per BlueValour. -- Steel 00:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Meant to be some laboured ungrammatical joke surrounding "paedophilia" I guess. Ho hum. --DaveG12345 02:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


Regarding Philopaideia:

I made this article.

I am working on a book project called The Philopaideia Project compiling the classical knowledge of various human cultures.

I work in philanthropy.

I own philopaideia.org. I'm working on the website.

philosophy=love of wisdom philopaideia=love of learning

"paedo" is an entirely different word from "paideia."

Also: There is a long history, especially in Greek, of scholars creating words for their own purposes. For instance, Eratosthenes of Cyrene (c. 275-194 B.C.E.) was the first to call himself philologos (philology, φιλολόγος). Source: The Oxford Classical Dictionary, Second Edition, pg. 405.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhenry312 (talk • contribs)

  • Comment According to this dictonary, the word means "love of boys". Regardless, the essential facts remain unchanged. It's a word invented by you, used only by you. You may want to review WP:NEO. It is true that other words have been invented. It is also true that Wikipedia does not document new words unless they actually achieve some widespread currency. Fan-1967 13:37, 10 July 2006 (UTC)



According to Wikipedia, paideia has nothing to do with 'love of boys' but instead is defined as:

To the ancient Greeks, Paideia was "the process of educating man into his true form, the real and genuine human nature." (1) It also means culture. It is the ideal in which the Hellenes formed the world around them and their youth.

Please look up Pedophilia. It is clearly stated in this article that the root word means boy and has an entirely different meaning from Paideia: pais (παις, "child")

I did read WP:NEO, however I believe that Classical Civilizations is not a subject that can easily be governed by the vagaries of popular culture. Most of what is the Classics will never be accepted under the greater whole of humans. Most people, especially Americans, have no idea what the root words are of the most basic Greek words like anthropology or philosophy.

It is a valid point that Philopaideia is not in widespread use at this time, but I believe in the spirit of the Greeks, which invented new words to suit their purposes (similar to German), such constructive concepts should be encouraged.

In addition, I don't think it should qualify as a neologism because it merely merges together two widely understood words- love (philo-) and learning (paideia). Rather than pedophilia, it would be better to relate Pedagogy and the word Encyclopaideia (all learning). In fact, Wikipedia itself could be written instead as "Wikipaideia" rather than Wikipedia as that would be truer to the original spelling for Encyclopaideia.

My website for The Philopaideia Project will be up soon and as soon as I said, I own philopaideia.org. This is not a for-profit operation but instead a non-profit venture and I have a long history of successful work in local and global charities and philanthropic foundations (many in my native Chicago).

Also, please keep in mind that I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to follow the rules and learn how to properly post. Thanks--johnhenry312

  • Comment First of all, non-profit vs for-profit is irrelevant. Secondly, everyone who tries to create a Wikipedia article on a newly coined word has a reason why they believe that their word should be exempt. The fact is that, in addition to violating WP:NEO, it's also, as your own work, Original Research. Wikipedia is a Tertiary source, and not the place for original ideas, uncited by anyone else. Wikipedia is deliberately not a place for people to float new ideas, but to document things and ideas which are already known to, at least, some significant number of the public. Fan-1967 17:18, 10 July 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.