Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neologistics


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 09:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Neologistics

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

lacks reliable sources, appears to fall under things made up one day RadioFan (talk) 01:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The article does do a rather good job of convincing one, right off the bat, that this isn't a field of study that is accepted or acknowledged, doesn't it? For what it's worth, there is an accepted idea of "neologistics", that I've turned up with some quick research, but it's completely different, and not documented as a standalone concept by sources.  It's part of a three-era model of logistics by Richard F. Poist.  So there's a case for a redirect to logistics, or perhaps green logistics, reverse logistics, closed-loop supply chain, or reverse supply chain, depending from where Poist's work ends up being discussed, now or in the future. Uncle G (talk) 04:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Article specifically states that this is not a recognised field of study. When it is, then it can have an article. Since the term doesn't appear to actually be used anywhere else (at least in this context), even a redirect to neologism doesn't seem worthwhile. Anaxial (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see the recently added link to this page. It is an academic paper written in Mandarin-Chinese by "刘升民". I think the paper demonstrates the usefulness of neologistics as a guide for students of language, especially students of a foreign native language. I quote here from the abstract: "Advanced learners should be taught the productive processes by which new entries enter the vocabulary so that they can make sense of the new words that they will come across. Teachers of advanced learners should acquaint them with the rules of word formation which native speakers intuitively apply to form new terms and understand those created by others. The knowledge of the patterns involved in word formation will help students to increase their vocabulary permanently." user:rarichter 03:25, 8 April 2009
 * Comment So far as I can tell, that paper does not use the word "neologistics" at any point, implying that "neologistics" is itself a recent neologism, and inappropriate for Wikipedia at this time. The article may well be useful as a source for the neologism page, but that's a different matter. Anaxial (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

see the links found in word formation. This topic should be addressed in the linguistics page, and it is addressed on the neologism page under ==Evolution of neologisms== rarichter 17:50, 8 April 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rarichter (talk • contribs) 
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  MBisanz  talk 00:03, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete - neologism, pardon the pun, and original research by creator rarichter. Bearian (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2009 (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.