Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myco-Industrial Complex


 * 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. Pretty clear neologism without wide usage. The difference between this neologism and others such as Brexit is that those have wide usage, whereas this does not. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 13:41, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Myco-Industrial Complex

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Seems to be original research. It claims, without source, that the first use was in January 2020. I can't find any sources for Myco-Industrial Complex and suspect it is a neologism. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 04:55, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Just like Brexit, Megxit and myriads of other neologisms in Wikipedia, "Myco-Industrial Complex" IS a neologism. I'm new to creating articles at Wikipedia. Please correct me if my understanding is wrong, and being a neologism is reason for exclusion from Wikipedia... and please explain why some neologisms are acceptable while others are not.  Each one at some point was a newly coined word with no references, that served a useful purpose, and so gained in popularity.  The word describes something that needs describing in a concise manner, and when I first heard Mr. Johns using it, I realized it was a useful concept concisely stated.  I would suggest that calling it "original research" is a stretch, as I simply heard someone use a word and found it useful.  When I went to Wikipedia looking for more information on the concept, I found it wasn't there, so I started an article about it.  I can certainly add the footnote for the meeting time and place when Mr. Johns used the word, and I will.  Billvh375 (talk • contribs) 20:47, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Usage. Brexit is used everywhere. On the other hand I couldn't find anything for this term. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:36, 8 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment So to clarify, with regard to Wikipedia's role in the evolution of language, Wikipedia is only for chronicling the evolution of language by documenting neologisms once they've already become popular? Or is Wikipedia allowed to participate in the evolution of language by documenting useful neologisms that might be relevant to our evolving society? Billvh375


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 04:58, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Article seems to be a duplicate of fungiculture. Capewearer (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I respectfully disagree that this article is a duplicate of fungiculture. The article fungiculture as currently written, pertains only to cultivation of edible fungi, and is a good overview of edible fungi production techniques. Most of those techniques only apply to edible fungi while fungi for other industries (such as pharmaceuticals) are produced in entirely different ways. The myriad other growing allied industries (pharmaceuticals, bioremediation, erosion control, ecological packaging, etc.) which have nothing to do with edible fungi, are ignored in the article fungiculture.  Cultivating edible fungi is only one piece of the overall Myco-Industrial Complex. Billvh375
 * Delete. Pure WP:OR, this term is not used in scholarly literature. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 03:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's page on WP:OR states 'The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist'. This neologism is not a fact, an allegation, or an idea. It is simply a definition. Are definitions also potentially "original research" though not a category mentioned as such? Billvh375
 * Comment This is the 2nd user who has used the term "original research" regarding this article, so there must be something I'm missing. If someone could please explain, I'd appreciate it.
 * Delete as original research, WP:TOOSOON, WP:NEO, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and made up on one day. Yes, despite the several citations in the page, this is not an actual encyclopedia article. We don't publish original research, and if this were 2006, or even 2012, I could forgive a reader who didn't known that. However, it's 2020: everybody knows that we don't allow every new phrase to have its own article. At this point in our history, willful ignorance is no defense. Bearian (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment WP:TOOSOON appears to apply here. at WP:TOOSOON there is a suggestion of making a draft instead of a published article.  However the deletion header says not to move an article during the deletion process.  Does this include moving an article into the draft space?  If so, when is the appropriate time to move an article into a draft space? Regarding the previous comment "everybody knows that we don't allow every new phrase to have its own article"... Perhaps everybody knows NOW, since I have just been educated, but everybody certainly did NOT know.  To assume that potential new editors are experts on all Wikipedia's rules is perhaps assuming too much? Billvh375 (talk) 00:31, 12 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NEO. I don't see the point of a redirect to fungiculture because of its total lack of use and WP:SURPRISE factor. buidhe 01:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I agree that a redirect to fungiculture wouldn't make sense, as per the comment above, these items are distinctly different to anyone understanding the topics. Billvh375 (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Delete and also we don't need a comment after every editor's perspective on the AfD. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 04:10, 13 March 2020 (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.