Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Borealocentrism
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. --Ezeu 14:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Borealocentrism[edit]
This term is a non-notable Neologism. Google has two hits. BigDT 20:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You need a few hundred hits at least to make it to neologism, this is protologism. Fan1967 21:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be protologism, if I'd actually invented it... --MacRusgail 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually it's someone else's protologism; based on Google, someone named Webster G. Tarpley, in the August 9, 1993, issue of "The New Federalist", or maybe the book you cite had it first. Neologism would be the next stage, but it clearly never made it there, and it's had 13 years to try. Fan1967 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neologism means "new word", which it clearly isn't. Protologism implies that it's never had public circulation, which it has done, to a limited extent.
- Actually it's someone else's protologism; based on Google, someone named Webster G. Tarpley, in the August 9, 1993, issue of "The New Federalist", or maybe the book you cite had it first. Neologism would be the next stage, but it clearly never made it there, and it's had 13 years to try. Fan1967 02:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be protologism, if I'd actually invented it... --MacRusgail 18:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete non-notable Neologism--Nick Y. 00:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I am the article writer, and this is certainly NOT a neologism. I have no reason to invent a word for something I don't really sympathise with. It appeared, albeit humourously in "The Official Politically Correct Dictionary and Handbook" (Beard & Cerf) published over TWELVE years ago (therefore not new), and "borealocentrism" has been used within po-mo circles for as long. It is no more ridiculoous than the reversed map idea (which is ANOTHER wikipedia article on the same subject area) or Afrocentrism. I would suggest you look this up at the library, in the books, rather than on google. --MacRusgail 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - neologism doesn't necessarilly mean that you invented it. But if it is an English referenced nowhere on Google, including Google Scholar Search, then I question its notability. Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms says this: "Neologisms that are in wide use — but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources — are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia. They may be in time, but not yet. The term does not need to be in Wikipedia in order to be a "true" term, and when secondary sources become available it will be appropriate to create an article on the topic or use the term within other articles." I would think that would apply here. It may be a real word, but it hasn't reached a point where it is ready for WP.
- "Neologism" (in the form of English most people speak), means a new word. This word isn't new. The notability's an issue, but the "neologism" issue is a nonsense, for the reason I've just stated. --MacRusgail 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) p.s. Google search notes "australocentric" which appears to be used in opposition to borealoentric.[reply]
- Neologism doesn't just mean something invented last week. English is hundreds of years old. This word is 12-13. That makes it a new word in the context of the English language. There are words that new which have passed beyond neologism stage because they've entered common usage (e.g. "blog"). This one hasn't. Fan1967 19:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does "neo" comes from the Greek for "new" and "logos" is the Greek for word. The notability is the issue here... it certainly isn't "neo logos".--MacRusgail 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't really matter, since the article totally fails on that count, too. Fan1967 02:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is in question, but to claim it is "neo" or "proto" is nonsense. --MacRusgail 15:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To claim it is an established English word is nonsense. Therefore, even after 12 years, it must still be regarded as a neologism. Fan1967 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't say it was necessarily an established word, just not a neologism. --MacRusgail 10:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To claim it is an established English word is nonsense. Therefore, even after 12 years, it must still be regarded as a neologism. Fan1967 16:28, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The notability is in question, but to claim it is "neo" or "proto" is nonsense. --MacRusgail 15:23, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Doesn't really matter, since the article totally fails on that count, too. Fan1967 02:00, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes it does "neo" comes from the Greek for "new" and "logos" is the Greek for word. The notability is the issue here... it certainly isn't "neo logos".--MacRusgail 18:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neologism doesn't just mean something invented last week. English is hundreds of years old. This word is 12-13. That makes it a new word in the context of the English language. There are words that new which have passed beyond neologism stage because they've entered common usage (e.g. "blog"). This one hasn't. Fan1967 19:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Neologism" (in the form of English most people speak), means a new word. This word isn't new. The notability's an issue, but the "neologism" issue is a nonsense, for the reason I've just stated. --MacRusgail 18:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC) p.s. Google search notes "australocentric" which appears to be used in opposition to borealoentric.[reply]
- Neologism, at best. Delete or merge or whatever. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 12:07, 10 May 2006 (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.