Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plectics

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. Mailer Diablo 00:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Plectics

A proposed neologism - by a Nobel winner, yes, but it doesn't appear to have caught on. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, the content is mostly copied fom [1]. I've refrained from tagging it with "copyvio" since it's being quoted, albeit very extensively. I'm not sure, though, to what degree this is admissible. Sandstein 12:18, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete crystal ball. I'm not sure that wikipedia is the right place for an etymological article in any case. MLA 12:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Another instance of this sort of thing is when Roger Penrose invented the word "twistor" Ruby 14:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep if you do a google search there's several related hits on various science sites refering to the specified topic as Plectics. Elfguy 14:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep per Ruby and Elfguy. --Squiddy | (squirt ink?) 15:17, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This is a word coined by Murray Gell-Mann, and used by others, to describe a field of study (simplicity and complexity) being pursued by him and other reasearchers. The field seems to be an important and growing. In my view this one of the things Wikipedia is especially good for, a home for the obscure (as well as the well known). Paul August ☎ 15:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, seems to be a lightly used neologism. I'm still mulling delete/keep, but I'm adding it a cleanup tag because it is a piss-poor article. Spends more time explaining the etymology of the word then it does explaining why Plectics is important or relevant as a concept. It it's current state it doesn't even qualify an encyclopedic.--Isotope23 17:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete neologism just isn't in wide enough use. Etymological discussion quotation isn't pertinent to the encyclopedic article and I don't see enough content for this to be more than a neologism dicdef.--Isotope23 21:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

• Keep as per Ruby and Elfguy.Blnguyen 23:42, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
• This is not encyclopedic. Transwiki the dicdef to Wiktionary and the explanation to Wikisource. Stifle 13:37, 9 February 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.