Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Humaniqueness

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. Michig (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Humaniqueness

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

As far as my searches go, this neologism has been used almost exclusively by Hauser, with some use by Ortolano. Other uses are almost entirely either in reference to Hauser (less often Ortolano), or in sources such as blogs, or both, with very few exceptions. There does not seem to be any evidence that the term is in general enough use to justify having an article about it. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:34, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The term is relatively new but it has already created other variances such as the adjective "humanique" which is becoming more and more widespread. I find the term to have enough relevance for portraying a novel idea about the human condition. And the term is supported both by a prominent scientist and a literary figure which justify an article about it. ElisaChen 6:20, 19 January 2013 (CST). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniqueness (talk • contribs)

Humaniqueness, can you explain why you signed that comment "ElisaChen"? Unless you can provide a convincing explanation, people are likely to think that you were trying to give the impression that there is more support for your article than there really is. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Useless neologism that really doesn't say much of anything. Wouldn't even belong at Wiktionary (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:39, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I beg to disagree with the strong deletion recommendation. The word is a wonderful neologism that says it all about the unique gifts that we, as a species, have to create things like "wikipedia". There is not a word in any language that translates this concept so beautifully. Besides, it is the title of a book and of a Harvard professor scientific hypothesis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniqueness (talk • contribs) 13:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete I came close to speedy deleting this, but there is a vague claim of notability. Neologism, no real notability, promotional. I wondered if the creator of this article should be blocked for infringing the username policy, any views? Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:19, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The creator of this article is only making an important contribution to Wikipedia. Important hypothesis such as the one states in the article should not be dismissed as "promotional" and does indeed belong to encyclopedias of any nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniqueness (talk • contribs) 14:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Errm "The creator of this article"? You created the article. Did you think that we wouldn't realise that? In conjunction to your use above of a different signature, this could encourage people to think that you are, again, trying to give the impression that there is independent support for the article, whereas in fact you are the only one who has supported it here. (Also, the word "promotional" refers not to the "hypothesis", but to the article about it.) JamesBWatson (talk) 19:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Marc Hauser as a plausible search term and neologism with evidence of at least basic usage. I would have preferred a redirect to Glauco Ortolano but that target does not exist in the English Wikipedia. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:38, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 23:31, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

James, a person may refer to him of herself in the third person at times. And of course, I created the article. My signature name "humaniqueness" is in every post, isn't it? And yes, I do see great value in this page otherwise I would not have created it in the first place. In my view, "humaniqueness" is perhaps the most important single philosophical concept created in the 21st Century. We finally have a word for that "spark" of genius that we have all been endowed with, which makes our species just so unique. Until recently, there was not a term for it, and I'm just so sorry that you have all failed to see the importance of this page. No resentments though. Geniuses are often overlooked and misinterpreted, and I see no exception here. End of story! Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Humaniqueness (talk • contribs) 01:13, 20 January 2013 (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.