Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crystal Mapping

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. Shereth 17:47, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Mapping[edit]

A prod tag was removed with no apparent improvement to the text. The article's author is also the author of the only citation provided, there is no other evidence to suggest that this is anything except an invented term that's trying to be promoted here, and the term has a much larger number of Google hits with respect to crystallography. Accounting4Taste:talk 17:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 17:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jonathan.

I can see why you thought crystal mapping unworthy of an entry. All I can say is that I'm doing this in good faith but I'm not sure how to proceed vis a vis the 'promotion' issue and some of the other problems. You're right I am the author of the only citation - will it help if I cite someone else's article about the subject. Also re crystallography and google counts - how do I get round that? The two things are entirely different?

The background to the term and the subject is that crystal mapping is similar to concept mapping and mind mapping and a number of other such tools and processes but is distinctly different in the way it handles the subject and thus is a new method in its own right. The key to crystal mapping is the fact that it is based on a circle thus representing unity. I have a number of academics who would verify the uniqueness of the idea and process.

This is not a spam / spurious idea of any sort and it is a genuine belief on my part and of others that crystal mapping is a new method and process and the intention is to get it increasingly recognised as such.

Also I note that a brand of mind mapping software Mind Manager has a listing. Could I copy the way this has been listed for Crystal Mapping (i.e. as a branded product in the general area of mind mapping / concept mapping)as a start?

Thsnka in anticipation of your comments —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark wogan (talk • contribs) 19:03, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be a neologism being promoted here. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 19:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC) [edit] Crystal Mapping Deletion status You are possibly right that it is a neologism - but thats a problem I'll have to deal with in a much more general sense than wiki entry. What if I use the term Crystal Map - would that cover off the neologism? I still can't figure how I can not promote the idea by entering it into wikipedia. Mind mapping promotes mind mapping and same for concept mapping? And surely mind manager is promting mind manager - thats advertising isnt it. I'm not trying here to sling any mud but i just dont know how else to make my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark wogan (talk • contribs) 19:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Mark wogan (talk) 19:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Most of what you need to hear from me/us is covered at WP:NEOLOGISM which states, among other things, "Articles on protologisms are almost always deleted as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term." That's my rough guess at what's going on here. The crystallography term has many independent third-party citations and seems to be a recognized term within that scientific discipline. Yours was recently invented by you, and seems only to be used by you, and that's the difference. When the phrase gains widespread usage in mainstream media to refer to the process -- and not to the branded product or the book associated with it -- then someone other than yourself will doubtless be moved to create a Wikipedia article about it. Until that time, you might want to look into Wiktionary, which has less stringent qualifications for its neologistic entries. By the way, "X has an article so my article about Y should be allowed" is not accepted around here as a valid argument -- see the page at WP:WAX for a detailed explanation of why that is so. In the meantime, the most valuable thing you can do to make any points on Wikipedia policy that may be of use to you is not here, but at the deletion discussion that you can access by the link within the box at the top of the article; only arguments found in that area will be considered when the closing administrator decides the fate of the article. If you have any questions with which I can be of further assistance, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste:talk 20:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Accounting4Taste" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.105.4.101 (talk • contribs) 08:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete.
Mark, you say that "that crystal mapping is a new method and process and the intention is to get it increasingly recognised as such" - this is pretty much the definition of what Wikipedia is not: original research, new ideas, a platform for promotion. Once your method has garnered significant coverage in independant, reliable sources, it can be included in an encyclopaedia, but not the other way around. --Amalthea^Talk 11:50, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, then redirect to Crystallography. Single crystal diffraction might be a better target, but appears currently to exist only as separate articles by scatterer. - Eldereft (cont.) 22:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I do not like self-promoters. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 06:23, 15 August 2008 (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.