Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Splace


 * 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 of the debate was delete both. Angr/ talk 22:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Splace

 * Delete. I am afd'ing this because it is utterly baffling (not clear at all), does not appear to me encyclopedic in its current form, and author has removed cleanup & context tags without making significant improvements to article. Please inform me if this is not felt to be an appropriate application of the AfD process. Hynca-Hooley 22:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I have also nominated Platzgeist, as it is essentially a duplication of Splace. Hynca-Hooley 22:35, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. This word exists on this website  and apparently nowhere else.  The article was created by Splace who appears to be the website creator/owner/whatever.  Delete as vanity page and NN.  [Note: I added "delete" vote to nominator's argument above.] Slowmover 22:39, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Why is it considered vain to propose an entry for word which resolves a complex concept which is highly relevant to the discourses of user interface, online experiences and has been alluded to without proper nomenclature by a number of prominent thinkers and philosophers... I am the author of the word, yes and there is a web destination where relevant works are posted.  Sorry for the deletion of the code heading.. first time around it appeared I was not certain what served and I'm figuring this discussion mode exists...  There is plenty of writings I am stitching into the text (se new links : Bergson, Deleuze, etc.)  The article was flagged for deletion withing minutes of my first posting where I had no links.
 * Please read WP:NOT and Avoid_neologisms. This may answer your questions. Slowmover 22:55, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply slowmower. Ten years ago these =were= neologisms. As we write, these words and notions are becoming relevant and common language in accademic arena as well as in the sofware development realm, especially online community development. I strongly believe that they should be available for reference both for a historical context POV as well as for their relevance to the discourses currently informing such creative areas. As an example: what Bergson believed was to be not representable (the motion of duration) became allegorized by the advent of film. Interactive media is opening even more access to notions such at that one as common experiences which can (and need) to be reffered to by a single term. in this case (splace and platzgeist, which mean the same but in diferent languages) do exactly that, they refer to an otherwise unrepresentable notion (the sense of place, as it relates to time and experience) in an interactive environment. To support these argument, I have made references to the thinkers who motivated the creation of such interactive (diegetic) space, and consequently the words to describe them. As online community sofwares evolve to the next phase, this will be even more relevant to describe succintly. "Wiki" was once, not too long ago, a neologism. Respectfuly yours, Splace
 * Delete Basically nobody uses this word right now. WP is not a crystal ball to predict neologisms which "are becoming relevant" or "will be even more relevant". Fan1967 23:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

you mean nobody you know? the word 'Zeitgeist' is widely known, 'Platzgeist' has been taking traction because the notions online media affords and it's logical derivation from Hegel's term 'Zeitgeist'. Splace
 * Platzgeist returns 51 Google hits, Zeitgeist returns 18,100,000. Come back when those two figures are closer to equal. Hynca-Hooley 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hynca-Hooley, that is a very good point, however, I must disagree with you, I am making a qualitative contribution, not one based on a quantitative gage. When did someone determine that the word "Bling" had reached the tipping point in order to deem it a signifier to all things 'Hip-Hop'? I agree there must be critical mass, but 'splace' and 'bling' differ qualitatively in that their usage is relevant to demographies which by their very nature will produce wide disparity in their numbers. I am talking accademia and sofware developers... not pop culture. I assumed that these kinds of reviews would be done by peers based on the relevance of the actual content contributed, not purely on speculatons of partially evident external factors. No one so far is going to the meat of what I posted to deem it 'deletable'. Please do not bite the newcomers  ;) cheers,  Splace


 * Delete. splace.net seems to be a small jewelry retailer, which is not enough of a reputable source to vouch for the notability of this neologism. --Allen 00:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Allen, Thanks for the diligent research. Again, non of this addresses the meaning and philosophical context of the words presented in the article. Tomorrow a restaurant chain could adopt the name and still that is irrelevant to the actual meaning of the word. Amazon is a river in South America, that a retail bookseller addopted that word as a name to do business, does not make the word more or less relevant in terms of it's original meaning. Is anyone here versant in the ideas presented in the article? That would make for a fairer scrutiny than what so far appears to be knee-jerk reactionary reviews to what so far is an unfamiliar word to some, presented by a newcomer. Respectfuly and simply curious. Splace
 * Thanks for your response. As far as I can tell, the website is run by the person who coined the word, so it doesn't seem quite like Amazon.com.  Also, if it weren't for the website, I would say that the article was original research, which Wikipedia discourages.  --Allen 00:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but "unfamiliar to some" is not exactly accurate. The relevant truth is: "unfamiliar to just about everyone in the world." Keep working on getting people to adopt it. When you've had some success, feel free to try again here. Fan1967 02:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete both. Protologisms, unverifiable, vanity, & unimportant. -- Krash (Talk) 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Krash, thank you for poiting the already-mentioned out :) I agree that 'vanity' clause seems to apply given the user name I chose for these sessions, clearly this could be solved easily if I sign in with a different username. As I explained above, the terms are no longer neo-logisms, and to quote from one of the links you posted, this is what is the case for my contributions:

"In the Wikipedia namespace, for example, the test should obviously be whether a word or phrase is useful for discussing Wikipedia, not whether the word is sufficiently widespread outside Wikipedia."

Please address the content and its relevance to the contextual references and meaning involved, not just the circumventing proto-evidence. Thank you. Splace
 * If I understand you correctly, you argue that these are not neologisms because they're ten years old. However, if, after ten years, practically nobody but you is using them, they would have to be described as a failed attempt at neologism. Nice try, though. Fan1967 03:00, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Fan-1976, thank you for your concern about my state of solitude. Out of the 69,500 google results for the word 'splace', I have culed 3 instances where profesionsls in a variety of fields are grapling with the meaning of the word, some of which will inform my further cleaning of the article:

1_A scholar in psychiatry: Sitzfleisch 2: The 'Platzgeist' and Cognitive Environmental Psychology KURT SALZINGER http://www.apa.org/books/4316571t.html

2_ An artist in Belfast: http://www.recirca.com/reviews/2005/theosims/ts.shtml

3_ A productivity consultant in England: http://www.predaptive.com/the_third_splace.htm
 * There's a little problem on the google hits, as the overwhelming majority lead to things like "JoysPlace" or "RosesPlace". Occurrences of "splace" as a standalone word are few and far between. Where the word does exist (like your items 2 and 3 above) there is nothing to tie it to Schnaas or platzgeist, and no indication that these sites have any definition of the word in common with each other or with you. Looks like these people also combined "space" and "place" but there's nothing there to attribute the word to any source other than the authors of those sites. Fan1967 15:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

In deed, Fan-1976, the bulk in the search results are typos but as I pointed above, the merit of the entry lies not on the quantitative but the qualitative value and relevance to the meaning of both 'splace' and 'platzgeist' they both are with out a doubt a needed modern terms for the ancient (Genius loci). I just ordered the book by Mr. Salzinger and will agregate his uses in the Psychoanalitic realm to these entries. Splace Fan-1976, I certainly appreciate your investment in this particular entry attempt. From my end at least I can say I am trying. I did however expect a bit more of the thoroughness you lent to the matter from other posters, if anything to experience the 'constructive' nature of this tool for the documentation of lexicon. I was surprissed by the blanket burocratic approact in the review so far, simply quoting potential broken rules as opposed to engaging in the potentiality of the project, despite it's outcome. I still strongly believe there is merit to this entry even if it needs to be cleaned up substantially, which I will endeavor to do over time, an investment I'll seemingly have to go at alone since there seem to be few or none true passionate lexicographers in this crowd... at least so far. Cheers to you! Splace
 * Sorry, but the crux of the matter is that nobody uses these words, and therefore they have no place here. You bring up words like "bling" and "wiki" which were once neologisms but are now accepted; your words have not reached that status yet, if in fact they ever will. I fear you misunderstood the point about the "Wikipedia namespace". There are terms commonly used in WP discussions, when talking about WP, that are not normally used elsewhere. "Cruft" is such a word. "Splace" is not. I am not one of the admins who will ultimately decide whether this entry stays or goes, but I would be very surprised to see it stay. Fan1967 21:14, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but the rules aren't that complicated. A word that nobody uses doesn't get an entry, no matter how much you like it, no matter how valuable you think it could be if people would use it. It's as simple as that. These terms have never caught on with anybody. I doubt they ever will. If they ever do, feel free to relist them, but I suspect you'll find them gone from here in a few days. Fan1967 01:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete per Krash. "The resulting dietetic space would then take the form of a 'Taurus' or dough nut shape" is, um.  &middot; rodii &middot;  03:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Platzgeist, on the other hand, can usefully be redirected to Spirit of place.  &middot; rodii &middot;  02:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as unverifiable, non-notable neologism, i.e. protologism. Stifle 00:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as neologism with original research - hence unverifiable. Ifnord 18:35, 12 March 2006 (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.