Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anaclopen

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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 12:46, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anaclopen

Anaclopen (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Protologism; author hopes to promote a mathematical term that he recently invented. It might be a perfectly useful term, but if it hasn't caught on yet, it doesn't get a Wikipedia article. See Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms. FreplySpang 23:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

• Delete fails WP:NEO, author's deprod stated "I hope that it will come into standard usage in the mathematical community", so, basically, it isn't standard usage now. No Ghits either. --Steve _(Slf67) ^talk 23:56, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Steve . meshach 01:17, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I now understand the argument being posed. The Wikipedia article creation process is a sort of Catch-22 as in order to get anaclopen into the realm of usage it must be published in a noticeable place (read: Wikipedia), yet Wikipedia does not allow such neologisms. I suppose a solution is to publish the term anaclopen in a journal and reference myself?

On a side note, I used Google to find any instances of "anaclopen," "aclopen," or "anticlopen" without success. So certainly this word is unique by virtue of the fact that Google knows all.

Also, I would like to point out that a possible argument against anaclopen is to use the phrase "not clopen." If one is versed in basic logic, however, they will quickly note that "not clopen" is not logically equivalent to "anaclopen" since not clopen implies not closed OR not open whereas anaclopen implies not closed AND not open: a subtle but significant difference.

Jongray 02:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

• Comment as WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox, you can't use it to promote neologisms (or to promote anything else really). Publishing the term in a journal is fine provided the journal itself is a reliable source, but because WP:NEO needs the usage to be widespread, that may not be enough. If you do eventually publish it in a reliable journal, however, it could probably be merged into a suitable topic. ColourBurst 03:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: No, no merging even then. Even if he publishes it, as you say it needs to be widespread enough. Mathematicians coin terms all the time in their papers, and most of them never catch on. --C S (Talk) 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. -- Fropuff 04:25, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Never heard of it. I would need to see some kind of semi-standard reference using this term. Also, see my comment above. --C S (Talk) 13:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. A term like this would need to be commonly used in books on general topology before it was acceptable for a WP article. linas 15:51, 14 December 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.