Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diactic

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 was delete. Cirt (talk) 02:40, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diactic

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A neologism coined by one Teruaki Georges Sumioka, a name that I'd not heard of till minutes ago, but apparently a theorist who's also donated "Spiral Up Structure" to the long-suffering English language, and probably "Action line" too. "Diactic" is clearly the distillation of some very Deep Thought indeed, and perhaps my inability to make head or tail of it merely reflects my inexcusable lack of a PhD in Continental Philosophy. On the other hand, it's just possible that it's mere obscurantism. (Not that my reason for nomination is that I don't like it, mind you. Far from it: I'm entranced by its aroma.) Now, "diactic" does manage to get a small number of ghits, but they're not obviously related and they often seem to be mere typos for "didactic". T. G. Sumioka is welcome to coin as many words and phrases as he wishes, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary of hopeful neologisms. And because these neologisms are failed or unused, there's no point redirecting the articles on them.

I am also nominating the following related pages because what's written above applies to them too:

(I also wonder when the redlink to Sumioka's "T Grand Structure" within the labored article "Implied author" will turn blue.) -- Hoary (talk) 15:26, 28 November 2009 (UTC) .... slightly reworded Hoary (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per nom --Brunnian (talk) 21:01, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. —Hoary (talk) 13:20, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Even making allowances for translation, it is hard to perceive even nuggets of encyclopaedic content in these articles. AllyD (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.