Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Agalmics (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Merge may be undertaken at editorial discretion (just see me so I may restore the history). Regards,   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 22:52, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Agalmics
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

An earlier version of this article actually failed at AfD Articles for deletion/Agalmics in 2005. This article claims more and different citations and I thought it was more appropriate to re-nominate it here rather than speedy-tagging it as a repost, given the amount of time that has passed. However, I still don't find enough evidence to indicate that this neologism has been taken up in any significant way. The primary citation is apparently a self-published essay; none of the references to fictional use seem to mention the word and what's left is entirely references in blogs. My searches revealed nothing but blog entries. Aside from the idea that Wikipedia is not a dictionary, there just doesn't seem to be enough notability here to me to warrant an article. Accounting4Taste: talk 20:59, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe it's inappropriate to call something that was coined at least more than a decade ago a "neologism". As a contrasting example the "Tea party movement" has been around less than a year and it is not stricken with the "neologism" tag on wiki.  There is sufficfient, and verifiable, use of "algamics" in fiction, academia, and culture to warrant an article.  Locutus42 (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. Nomenclature aside, evidence of that "verifiable use" is precisely what's being requested.  Feel free to add those references directly to the article and mention them here.  Accounting4Taste: talk 23:03, 13 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article does cite the specific uses in fiction and in various academic seminars (with references/links).... are you wanting something more?Locutus42 (talk) 21:04, 14 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Locutus is mistaken in that this is not a neologism, in fact many words that are decades old can be considered neologism if they do not gain wide usage, be it in specialized form (as argot or jargon) or in the general language. The comparison with "Tea party movement" is fallacious: a neologism is always one word, never a phrase, in the case of "tea party movement" all three words are clearly defined and widely used words that put tofether instantly provide the average person with a descriptor. A neologism is usually a completely new word, usually using previous words, or words from other languages as a basis.


 * The links in the article for the most part are primary sources, completely innapropiate in establishing notability - that is wide usage of the term in the field of economics, or in the specific, the speculative field of post-scarcity economics. --Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete, I don't find any references via Google news, and not much in general on the web. -- Nuujinn (talk) 18:31, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete and merge with Post scarcity - there is no sufficient use in reliable, peer-reviewed academic journals to have enough information for its own article, however the concept does verifiably exist as related to post scarcity - and thats where it belongs is a shortened form. Wikipedia is not a dictionary, as such if we cover a topic it should be in the context of explaining its usage: this goal is best done by merging into "post-scarcity". --Cerejota (talk) 06:14, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. No reliable third party sources about the subject.  Read's like an old neologism that someone is trying to promote.  Essentially it is a word, so before it could be considered here, it would have to be eligible for inclusion at Wiktionary.  See http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wiktionary:Criteria_for_inclusion and get it listed there before trying here again.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:13, 23 April 2010 (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.