Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water Cycle - new definition as "Waterway Cycle"


 * 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 speedy delete - author agrees that it is OR. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:13, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Water Cycle - new definition as "Waterway Cycle"

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This is an essay, and really does not belong on Wikipedia. --  Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 05:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC) "Neologism" The posture that the term "Waterway Cycle" qualifies as a "neologism" is correct. Perhaps, it will be best for Wikipedia if this newly coined term is deleted. On another note, there is solid scientific research that fully documents the existence of the three interdependent and interactive water cycles as presented. However, no one has yet to synthesize recent scientific research and extant water cycle data into a coherent and more accurate definition for our Earth's water cycle. Thus, the genesis of my effort to accomplish this task.
 * Delete as original research and a non-notable neologism. The only reference is a conference paper by the creator. I have been unable to find any significant coverage in independent, reliable sources.  Cullen 328  Let's discuss it  05:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have been involved with water research for over forty years and have presented information from my books and essays at the United Nations and various international water conventions. My award-winning book, "Water Voices from Around the World," includes essays from some of the worlds foremost water experts and researchers: Mikhail Gorbachev (Chair, Green Cross International); Dr. Jane Goodall; Glenn Estess (former President of Rotary International); Larry Fahn (former President of Sierra Club); Peter Bridgewater (Secretary General Ramsar); Gedeon Dagan (Stockholm Water Prize Recipient); Gilbert M. Grosvenor (Chair, National Geographic Society); Dr. Eilon Adar (Director of Water Research, Ben-Gurion University), and many others. My water research also includes interviewing the world's foremost NASA scientists, and oceanic researchers such Dr. Robert Ballard (from whom the "oceanic water cycle" data is sourced).

Granted, this page needs additional references to fully meet Wikipedia's standards, which I intend to do. However, if Wiki's posture is to delete this page - I will just move on to other projects, one of which is a book on this subject. In advance, I thank you for your response and editorial suggestions, Williamwaterway (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:05, 25 March 2012 (UTC).


 * William, appreciate your understanding. Do understand also that it's not that I like getting rid of material necessarily, but this is not within our scope.  Perhaps at a future time, without recommending the implementation of a new term - that is, if waterway cycle becomes common vernacular and falls within our scope.  That, though, can't be predicted. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete as a personal essay. J I P  &#124; Talk 13:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. If this is a subject worth covering in Wikipedia, the article ought to be created by someone other than the person who created this concept and named it after himself. Otherwise, we will have problems with original research and conflict of interest. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:09, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Dennis - I will employ the db-author tool immediately.
 * Delete - Why wasn't this WP:OR personal essay speedied? - UtherSRG (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply because, to the best of my knowledge, WP:OR and personal essays do not qualify for speedy deletion. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 22:30, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In my opinion as an author, publisher, editor - the Wikipedia editing process is FLAWED. If the author of a page wishes to delete his/her posted content from Wiki - Wiki should promptly allow same. I don't like wasting my time or yours. Williamwaterway (talk) 02:36, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * William, if you refer to the article, we do allow this, but it must be an administrator due to the back-end requirements (not anybody can just delete something, the community has to be trusted). If you wish to do this, the fastest way is to simply place 'db-author' on the page (with the braces, without the quotes), and it shall be done. You can make the blatant request here on the page, but that takes time and confirmation - the former way I suggest is simply more efficient.  But please, if you want to delete it right out, you need to be explicit - certainly, as an author, you understand that hints and suggestions are unbecoming. As to your concerns about flaws, it's probably best to go to our editors' guidelines and pick that apart in the individual talk page - this discussion is, quite simply, not the place.  -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 02:42, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Two responses relative to disallowing neologisms - imagine if this world was not a dimension of "open minds" when the founders of this encyclopedia introduced the word "Wikipedia." As far as a term reflecting the name its inventor or creator - parents create children which they name after themselves; "jacuzzi" named his invention after himself, and, of course - we have the application of Latin binomials often reflecting the name of the person who discovers a new species. Mine is the discovery of a new definition for our Earth's "waterway cycle."

Relative to water rhetoric - the term "waterway cycle" reflects a transformational change in our thinking process relative to a deeply embedded definition (430 years) that is no longer functional. In short - this new definition reflects an evolutionary change to our understanding of this creative motive process. The waterway cycle concept signifies, implicitly and beyond the the level of polemic engagement on specifics by those who have never explored the definition - the basic assumptions that continue to legitimize Encyclopedists. Thus, in a larger context - the waterway cycle serves as a model that embodies an intellectual adaptive mechanism for addressing evolutionary change, and represents a new voice in the veritable fugue of antiquated water cycle rhetoric.Williamwaterway (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2012 (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.