Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ideolexico

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. Cirt (talk) 20:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ideolexico

I PRODded this when it appeared yesterday, and the PROD has not been contested, but on consideration I would like more eyes on it. New editor Smithonian (talk · contribs) entered two articles, Political Semantic Fields Theory, based on a book in Spanish by Jorge Majfud, and this one which defines and discusses a word used in the other. The reference cited for this article is a parallel text in Spanish and English: the word "ideoléxico" occurs only in the Spanish text, ~~and each time is translated in the English text by the established English word "ideolect"~~ (see below) is translated in the English text as either "ideolect" or "idiolect".

With the PROD notice, I suggested to the author that as I can find no evidence for the use of "ideoléxico" in English, it would be better for him to add any relevant material to the existing article Ideolect rather than to introduce a new Spanish headword which people are unlikely to search for. He has not so far replied.

I am not entirely convinced that "ideoléxico" is being used here in exactly the same sense as "ideolect" and so I hesitate to propose a merge; if there is a new concept here it may need a new word (ideolexicon?), but per WP:NEO we should not have an article for a neologism for which there is no evidence of any use in English.

I therefore propose that we delete this article, and invite the author to merge any necessary material back to Political Semantic Fields Theory to make it self-contained, and to propose any addition to Idiolect which may seem useful, consistent with its established meaning. JohnCD (talk) 21:53, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —JohnCD (talk) 21:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't get distracted by translation. "Ideolexico" is a WP:NEO in any language. English "idiolect" is Spanish "idiolecto". Furthermore, the meaning of "ideo-" is quite different from "idio-". It looks like a mistranslation in the parallel texts from "ideolexico" to "idiolect" when "ideolexicon" may have been a better neologism in English. I don't think his article "Ideolexico" has any relationship to the "Idiolect" article. I would tend towards deletion strictly on the neologism/original research aspect but will withhold opinion in case of factual error in what I am saying. Drawn Some (talk) 23:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for unconfusing me between "ideo-" (idea) and "idio-" (individual, personal, distinct). I was puzzled that I couldn't find "ideolect" in the dictionary, and when I found it here didn't notice that I had been redirected to "idiolect". In the magazine cited, "ideoléxico" is twice translated "ideolect" and once "idiolect"; I think that one is a mistake, and that the meaning intended is actually the "ideo-" (idea) one. In that case my remarks about "idiolect" are irrelevant, what we have here is definitely an unsupported neologism which should not have its own article, and the Political Semantic Fields Theory needs to be rewritten to be self-contained, perhaps using and explaining within the article some new term like "ideolexicon" - I think "ideolect" would be unsuitable as too liable to cause confusion with "idiolect". JohnCD (talk) 10:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As JohnCD notes, ideoléxico is clearly a Spanish word, not an English one. I have found no occurrence of the term ideolexicon, but a handful of uses of ideolect in literary criticism, and use by one anthropologist. It's not clear to me, though, that the several users share the same sense or usage of the term. Most of the literary articles are written from a post-modernist stance (including a few translations from French, not Spanish), but a few are from a Marxist stance (which would seem to accord with Majfud's usage in Monthly Review). The anthropologist who uses ideolect (PDF here) says that he is suggesting a new term, and defines it differently from the page proposed for deletion. I guess all of this is a long way of suggesting that (what I take to be) the English equivalent lacks notability.

I am therefore leaning toward a delete !vote or possibly a merge into either Language ideology or Political correctness, though neither of those seems like a very good match. Political Semantic Fields Theory is obviously a better match, but I'm not convinced that that page is notable, either. Cnilep (talk) 15:00, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It seems clear that "ideolexico" is a non-notable neologism, apparently one man's coinage in Spanish: ideoléxico is a recent and it is part of the Political Semantic Fields Theory. It is used to indicate the semantic construction and the ideological enhancement of a word as the tensions of social power take place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:48, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as neologism. No sources showing it is even a widely used new word, and it would seem likely that if it is notable, then an english word would exist.Yob Mod 10:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a neologism. Mrs. Wolpoff (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NEO. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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.