Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rotatope

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. Kurykh (talk) 06:02, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rotatope[edit]

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

Neologism, sourced to an open wiki; no reliable secondary sources for it, and searches turn up nothing. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 03:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not notable, unverifiable. - CHAMPION ^{(talk) (contributions) (logs)} 04:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I am certainly not able to predict, if this neologism will gain momentum in time, but I think it is coined to encompass already quite a number of (topological) constructs in higher dimensional geometry (hyperspheres, hypercubes, mixed forms, ...) some of which are given names of their own, not really wellknown in the general public (glome? ), and therefore valuable to be found in Wikipedia, pointing to some family background. Maybe, it belongs to an other kind of article (lists?). I consider this information sufficiently useful to be kept under whatever title. Purgy (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC) Stricken for the reply below, the indentation of which is hopefully de rigeur. Please, see also my comment below. Purgy (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not a valid reason to keep: our policies on neologisms are quite clear, we do not have articles on them unless/until they can be found in reliable sources (by which time they are probably no longer a neologism). Keeping them on Wikipedia is putting the cart before the horse; if WP has articles for words as soon as they are created then WP – considered a reliable, or at least comprehensive, reference by many – ends up establishing them. It means that all anyone needs to do, to get their new word well known, is put in on Wikipedia. To prevent this we require all neologisms are reliably sourced.
- It is worth mentioning that the mathematical content of the article will still be on Wikipedia. Although it is a new word the things it is being used to describe are not new, and have their own articles.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 13:06, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I certainly do not want to argue besides the rules of WP, but I do appeal for finding some rules to have this information in WP, conformant to its guidelines (arguing along the lines of comparing with common sense the usefulness of having several articles on individual representatives of conjectured child prodigy vs. offering the possibility of looking up possibly useful emerging nomenclature). Purgy (talk) 10:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- The guideline on neologisms which I was thinking of is here Wikipedia:Neologism. It gives some indication of when it might be appropriate to have an article on a neologism, There is a place for it on a Wikimedia site, which I came across when searching: Wikt:Appendix:List of protologisms/Q–Z. As it says, the policy there is not to create articles there either, though there is a place for such words. But there is no such list or index on Wikipedia.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:32, 25 January 2017 (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.