Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudo-variety

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 The Land 20:23, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudo-variety

Possibly a neologism. Single link to blog entry, no other ghits other than for an unrelated term in group theory. Created by a user putting up lots of new pages with what appears to be OR. Hornplease 05:27, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as currently written. Although with some good addition and sourcing, it might be demonstrated to not be a neologism. Kukini 05:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as covert linkspam. (Article title is the title of the linked blog post.) We do not need another word to describe oligopoly. Kimchi.sg 05:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - though it needs to be rewritten, the idea is real. - Richardcavell 06:11, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ahem. Not to make too big a deal of it, but even if the idea is real, WP isnt the place to coin new words describing it. As kimchi says, there's a well-written article on oligopoly already. Hornplease 06:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That article on oligopoly doesn't mention the concept being discussed in pseudo-variety. The term 'pseudo-variety' is probably grammatically incorrect (should be pseudovariety or False abundance of product choice or something like that) - Richardcavell 06:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually you're right, the oligopoly article is pretty basic. I've just rewritten a bit of it and put in the appropriate link to the product differentiation article. But the above thing is still a neologism. Hornplease 06:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

• Keep--TheMadTim 03:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Could we have a reason? Thanks. Hornplease

That depends. Is it mandatory for me to state a reason? --TheMadTim 15:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

If not mandatory, then at least customary, so that other users have access to a broader set of viewpoints. Hornplease 16:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. The site quoted as a source describes this as a neologism, one of three being proposed in that blog. Actually, "protologism" might be the correct term, since (as far as I can tell) this term is only being used in this context on one blog and, now, wikipedia. Never mind, Google makes it look like this term might actually be in use in this context. No vote. ergot 00:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? there's a similar term in mathematics. I haven't been able to find any other ghits. Hornplease 04:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, you're right. Looking at the results more closely now, the only other examples of usage in this exact context are a PDF and a "buzzword dictionary" (www.buzzwhack.com) whose content is getting reproduced as filler on other sites. Beyond that, we have the site being referenced as this article's source describing the term as a neologism. Changing my vote back to delete. Apologies for cluttering up this AfD with my indecisiveness. ergot 17:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable, hard-to-verify neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle (talk) 23:40, 5 May 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.