Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Helix of sustainability


 * 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   no consensus, default to keep. lifebaka++ 13:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Helix of sustainability

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Neologism. Veiled spam for one company written by an SPA. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The page has now been edited to remove the name of a company using the concept, and the university department where the concept was invented. Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 01:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Whether or not this is used by some company, it appears that the topic has at least some academic interest from its reference list.  --Falcon Darkstar Kirtaran (talk) 04:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. reveals that there are only nine Google hits for this term. There is one Google Books and two Google Scholar returns, but they are not independent of the aforementioned institute. Upon reading the article, nothing differentiates a "helix of sustainability" from Sustainability. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 06:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I think one of your search hits is for http://www.natcapsolutions.org/HELIX.htm which does appear to be commercial consultancy and has no connection to the matter at hand Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Quality, not quantity - there are references from the journal of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining, the European Science Foundation, and an international conference hosted by the Doshisha University - the papers clearly went through reputable review processes independent of WMG to be accepted for publication.Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Not all the articles appear to actually use the term. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * “Nature’s way – sustainable polymers and composites”, Materials World, October 2003 - page 33 - diagram and text Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * “Environmentally Friendly European Composites Workshop” European Science Foundation, April 2004 - Page 4 - text in section on education Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't have reference 2 to hand, but will order it from the library and check Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference 2 does contain both the text and diagrams on page 30 and 31 of the publication Qantenah (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete: this seems to be jargon coined to market a consulting firm, and not a serious intellectual concept. --Slashme (talk) 14:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The concept originated at the Warwick Manufacturing Group which is part of the school of engineering at the University of Warwick - not a commercial organisation Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 10:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Concept itself has received no outside notice. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Paragraph 2: Thought to be a sufficiently serious intellectual concept by a senior academic from Imperial College to be presented to a UK cabinet minister Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 11:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * See edit above - there was another mention in the original text, but I took it out as people seemed to think it was advertising. A google search for the phrase gives 66 hits. Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No, only 15 when Wikipedia is deducted and duplicates are allowed. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 01:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, good catch, and agree. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep Notably distinct from simple circular concepts of recycling and there's enough WP:V in there. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions.   —-- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep. It has sufficient info but does not seem particularly notable. It cannot be regarded as spam given the references. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm quoting from another AfD; "...per WP:NEO: "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." In this case there is no evidence of any use except by" K. Kirwan. "Also, "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" applies here." Phlegm Rooster (talk) 14:10, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, thank you to Phlegm Rooster for raising the issue of neologism. If we look at the relevant wikipedia page it gives us "e-mail" as an example of a neologism explaining that this was a newly coined word to describe a new phenomenon. So if we were to be more formal about it and call it "electronic mail", this would not be a neologism as the words used have long and traceable etymologies. Further down the article we are given Fordism, Taylorism, Disneyfication and McDonaldization as examples of neologisms - words that didn't exist before that which they are used to describe. The problem with neologism is that with it we risk losing understanding - becoming like Humpty Dumpty ("When I use a word,it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.") So no argument with discouraging the random use of made-up words at all. However it should be equally clear that neologism cannot be the same as using old established words to describe new things - or else "veiled spam", "guerilla spam" and equally "Helix of sustainability" and ultimately any writing on a recent subject will be effectively disallowed. So two choices really - wikipedia as an idea cemetery or wikipedia as a rapidly evolving definitive source. As a recent arrival I look forward to learning which it is.Nasier Alcofribas (talk) 08:23, 8 August 2008 (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.