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 no consensus to delete, so default to keep. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heptalogy[edit]

Heptalogy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

A nonce word/ neology created by analogy with "trilogy". My original AFD nomination for this page was approved unanimously and by a relatively large number of people. Shortly afterwards the page was recreated in much the same form. The article is prohibited by WP:NOT, which says "articles about words formed on a predictable numeric system... are not encyclopedic". The purpose of this rule is obvious; it is to stop articles whose titles contain numbers being expanded indefinitely and to the point of silliness. It is the reason that there are no individual articles on octuplets or triennial or bicentenary or quadreme or even (far more saliently) hexalogy. Citations certainly exist for all of these things and the one improvement the user who recreated the heptalogy article made was in providing citations for that word. The fact remains that this word is not an established concept like the iambic pentameter or the hexadecimal system; rather it is a word that is coined from time to time as an answer to the question: "if a trilogy is three things, what is the word for seven things?". The nature of the citations is fairly revealing. Most are so old that they predate the establishment of online editions of their newspapers. If one searches long enough for a word that is formed on a predictable system it will inevitably be found. This is not the same as being "genuinely in use", the only exception to the rule quoted above. I would be happy to see the page being replaced by a redirect but in its current form it looks indefensible Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete again I'm surprised that this not only came back, but that it came back with the same title as before. I'd wear a disguise if I was sneaking back across the border. "Heptalogy" is easily confused not only with herpetology (study of snakes) but also hepatology (study of the liver). As with a suggestion that six things be a "sexology", there are reasons why the word isn't more common. A search of Google books brings back 28 hits. There's no reference to any studies of literature (though some of these are apparently to newspaper book reviews); I have a feeling that the author ain't no lit major. This is a mild improvement over the last article, which described the Police Academy movies as a modern day seven-part masterpiece. However, just as there's a difference between a literary trilogy and a movie series that stopped at "III", not every group of seven things would be a "heptology". The author obviously has some sources... my suggestion would be that if you're really wanting to make this work, then you include a quotable quote in each of your footnotes-- it may well be that Michael Wright's review of Marcel Proust's series included the word "heptology", as in "Marcel Proust wrote one helluva heptology in the form of Remembrance of Things Past". Give us something more to go with than counting to seven. Mandsford (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  They include the word "heptalogy" (not "heptology"). :-) I've added quotes for each citation included for those lit majors who can't verify offline references. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article re-creation is not "sneaking". I addressed the citation problems raised in the previous AFD. Indefinite series is not proposed here (and citations would not exist for whatever the word is for a series of 19 anyway), so that concern is not salient. I'm also surprised that having "old" citations (in addition to current citations) is raised as a problem alongside accusations of neologism -- citations do not have to be online to be valid. And 3 of the 7 citations are from 2007. The citations given as genuine and show the word genuinely in use across multiple years. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep With the citations, the article shows that there are certain seven-part works of literature that are considered by literary critics to be true "heptalogies". For anyone who remembers the prior article (which not only included original research, but really bad original research, Police Academy, e.g.) don't judge this one by that prior disaster. Moreover, this one has the criteria for inclusion spelled out sufficiently that it's not likely to become a dumping ground for things like (when they eventually happen) "Terminator 7" or "Oceans 17". Mandsford (talk) 02:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A lack of sourcing wasn't the only reason for the original nomination. The fact is "heptalogy" isn't an established idea. It is a word that will inevitably be formed independently a handful of times and that can be made up by anyone with a basic knowledge of English. Of course it will turn up very occassionally if one conducts an electronic search of tens of thousands of newspapers. Nevertheless, a word that appears in printed form about once a year must not have an article because the precedent it sets is quite dreadful. The word enjoyed a brief surge in popularity late 2007 (from almost unheard of to extremely rare). The reason for this is that the word briefly appeared in the opening line of the Wikipedia Harry Potter article. It has now sunk once more into oblivion. What JHunterJ must explain is why, when we do not have articles on septuplets or octopeds, we ought to have this article. What makes heptalogy stand out over hexology or pentalogy when it seems to be accepted that articles about large numbers of things do not deserve their own articles? Is heptalogy an established genre or have these authors described their works as heptalogies or does it even appear in any dictionary? Is there any evidence that this is more than an article on a nonce word (albeit one that has been coined more than once)?--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sorry, why do I have to explain the absence of other articles again? Can Wikipedia articles only be created after all other related articles have been created first? The explanation remains the same: this is not an article in a series of numerical articles; it's an single article on a single concept with proper citations. What Lo2u must explain is why that's insufficient for this article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Yes, you do have to explain the absence of these other articles. The fact that words formed on predictable numerical systems are not encyclopedic, and not a lack of sourcing, was the basis of the original AfD, and something that was not remedied by the provision of sources. I repeat, this is not an established word and it is not a word that is in use by anyone. It is a word that can be easily coined and that has been coined a minute number of times but that has never appeared in any dictionary and was only sourced by an electronic search of vast numbers of newspapers. It is a shame that we have an article on heptalogies which mentions only one seven part work that has ever been called a heptalogy by more that one person. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:22, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      I'm afraid I can't take your word for it. What policy or guideline states that an article should be deleted if the absence of other articles cannot be explained? I added addition heptalogies to the list (with journal and web citations, not newspapers), with multiple references each, so there are now three that have been called heptalogies by more than one person. You contradict your own claim of "not a word that is in use by anyone". -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

      • What part of my previous answers do you want me to repeat? The fact that other words formed predictably by the substitution of different numbers do not have articles and are not encyclopedic per WP:CBALL was the basis of the original AfD and something you disregarded when you recreated the article. I will ignore the last sentence because I think it's basically pedantic and I've explained that point elsewhere. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:59, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        This isn't an article about a word formed predictably yada yada. It's an article about a genre concept with citations. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

        • Who says it's a genre? That's what the original AfD decided it wasn't and something that you didn't address when recreating the article. It's an extremely ambitious claim that giving books six sequels is more of a "genre concept" than, for example, giving them 11 chapters. If you're right, and the word is notable as well, you will be able to point to sources that have discussed heptalogy as a genre and that say it is a concept common to several books. If not, why not admit that it's "a word formed predictably yada yada" and explain why it should be kept in spite of that. Seriously, can you honestly say that you'd heard the word before you read it in that excruciating first line of the Harry Potter article and that you didn't then go to extraordinary lengths to find other cases in order to prove a point? If so, I'd be interested to know where you'd heard it considering that a search of the Times, Telegraph and Guardian websites turns up only one result and that that result coincides, of course, with that Wikipedia article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:31, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NOT#CBALL and WP:NEO. Although the word has appeared in print, it is not in actual use. Dictionary.com doesn't have any dictionary search results and the only encyclopedia search result was this article. Jay32183 (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would also point to one pertinent sentence in WP:NEO, "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 20:48, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If so, then this article falls into the same lack of citation as Duology, Trilogy, and Tetralogy, right? Actually, the Canberra Times citation is an RSS about the term, not just a citation that uses it. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:25, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. It's an article about the number seven. Other articles not being cited isn't a reason to keep this article, it's a reason to delete those articles. Jay32183 (talk) 02:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The entire article doesn't have to be about the topic; the citation is about the topic, not just an example usage of the word. -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:30, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fairly straightforward. WP:NEO says "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term". "77 things about the #7" is an article (or series of bullet points) about seven that uses the term. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 13:19, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree it's fairly clear: "77 things about the #7" is an article (or series of bullet points) that includes a bullet point about "heptalogy", not just one that uses the term. The other citations are different (and do not meet NEO) in that they just use the term. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:36, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. You need to find a genuine discussion of the subject in question. Two sentences in a newspaper's list of trivia can't be the basis of an article.. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 17:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. The article needs to be expanded (and it's tagged as a stub). Other citations may be needed as well, because the two-sentence one forms a very small foundation. But those point up the need for article work, not article deletion. With the citations on individual entries, I've addressed many of the incorrect points brought up (and perhaps made its current form better suited for List of heptalogies) -- nonce word, false; neologism, false; WP:CBALL, false, since it's genuinely in use; lack of citations, fixed; lack of non-newspaper citaions, fixed. Additional work will be useful, but I don't think the need for deletion has been carried. -- JHunterJ (talk) 18:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The subject of the sources you cite must be "heptalogy". The subject of the source you are citing is "the number seven". That source is, by definition, a source that simply uses the term "heptalogy". "Heptalogy" is, therefore, a neologism. You've actually already proved it yourself, you're just refusing to admit it. Jay32183 (talk) 21:22, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The source must be include information about "heptalogy" and not just use it (one does), but the policy does not demand that the entire article be about "heptalogy". -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The fact that the neologism is being used occasionally might justify its having a Wiktionary entry. But there is no encyclopaedic topic here. Grafen (talk) 19:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  As an aside, it's not a neologism. -- JHunterJ (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• keep: not a neologism. A heptalogy is different from, say, a hexalogy because for cultural reasons a series of seven is more satisfying than one of six. People don't write series of novels that just happen to add up to seven volumes (at least not in most of the cases given); these things are planned - and it's no coincidence that the largest cluster of works in the list is of fantasy novels. --Paularblaster (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In order for an AfD vote to count, the editor is obliged to give a valid reason. The above is original research and the information the editor supplies is rightly not incorporated into the article. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can understand you being upset at being contradicted, but the fact remains that this is not a neologism, therefore the nominator's rationale for deletion fails: I can explain it again even more explicitly if this doesnt satisfy you. Since you seemed to think that the non-existence of hexalogies was somehow relevant I sought to explain the difference, little realising that AfD comments needed sourcing now: perhaps you can explain to me how this or this constitutes original research? --Paularblaster (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a synthesis of published material, once more I would direct you to WP:OR. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for repeating your helpful reference. Having reread WP:OR again I still fail to see its relevance. One bunch of people say that there are seven Harry Potter books because of number symbolism; another bunch say there are seven Narnia books because of number symbolism; you say that there is no significance to seven-part series because seven is just the number that happens to come after six. Ah, perhaps WP:OR is relevant after all - kindly allow me to direct you to it. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:36, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a neologism because it does not appear in any major dictionary and there aren't any books are articles devoted to "heptalogy". The cultural significance of the number seven is not relevant. Jay32183 (talk) 07:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The cultural significance of the number 7 is relevant to the assertion (and controversian) of the genre-specific importance of the heptalogy: works that are planned to consist of seven parts (whether all seven get written or not) are with very few exceptions either (children's) fantasy or high- or post-modernist works, in either case deliberately making heavy use of various types of culturally entrenched myths and symbols at the deepest levels of the structure of the work. Take a look at this, for instance, to see something of Proust on the number seven. It's true that from the perspective of a dictionary heptalogy can be satisfactorily reduced to general entries under "hepta-" and "-logy", but this is not a dictionary: it's an encyclopedia discussing culturally notable things, which include works of art consisting of seven parts (but not of six parts, eight parts, fourteen parts, etc.: the spectre raised in the nominator's rationale). --Paularblaster (talk) 11:44, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the place. You're new to Wikipedia and I suggest you go back have yet another read of WP:OR. If you have trouble understanding it, try asking at the Village pump or put you ideas on talk:heptalogy and I will gladly explain why they can't be included. This is an AfD and you're trying to discuss things that aren't even in the article.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:22, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With all the regard that your six months' seniority as a contributor demands, I would suggest that the stringency of your interpretation of the "OR" rule is unhelpful, and that this is a case for WP:COMMON: here we have a word that is recorded in highly-regarded sources dating back almost a century (so "genuinely in use" as well as being, as you admit, the obvious word for works in seven parts), and we also have an abundance of sources saying that seven is a non-trivial number for the parts of many works of art (not only including current massive phenomena in popular culture such as Narnia and Harry Potter, but also work by Proust and Stockhausen). Your main concern at nomination was to prevent "articles whose titles contain numbers being expanded indefinitely and to the point of silliness", but that concern has been sufficiently addressed: as it stands, heptalogy has almost as many footnotes as Aeschylus and is far better sourced than tetralogy. You can rest free of fear that it will somehow make an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS case for pentalogy, hexalogy and all the rest. Anyway, I've had my say and should really be doing other things (not least sleeping), so I'm unwatching this discussion and you needn't expect a response before the AfD is closed - but if you would like to discuss it further at greater leisure, feel free to do so on my talkpage. --Paularblaster (talk) 03:34, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't expect any response, but it should be noted that the above explanation demonstrates the user's lack of understanding of both WP:NOR and WP:NEO. All indication is that "heptalogy" is not genuinely in use, nor are there any reliable sources devoted to the subject. Interpreting the importance of the number seven for this purpose is the exact reason WP:NOR exists, so WP:COMMON would suggest following the policy regarding original research. Jay32183 (talk) 03:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word is genuinely in use -- see the citations on the article. The word is not a neologism -- see the 1911 citation on the article. It is not a nonce word -- see the citations on the article, ranging from 1911 to 2008. There is no original research on the article -- see (again) the citations. You are correct that there are no cited sources "devoted" to the subject, but sources need not be "devoted" to their subjects to be used. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, are we still here? I thought an admin would have closed this by now, one way or another, a full week after things kicked off. Anyway, it has suddenly struck me why Lo2U and Jay32183 kept referencing WP:OR in ways that seemed utterly irrelevant: they have failed to take account of the fact that there is considerable overlap between the sources using the term heptalogy and the sources stressing the significance of seven as the number of parts in a series; they therefore think that this is a case of the "synthesis" explicitly banned by WP:OR, but that is a mere trick of the light: far from saying "sources say A and B, therefore C", JHunterJ and I are saying only "some sources say A (heptalogy is the word for 7-part works), some sources say B (the number 7 is not a random or trivial aspect of these works), some of them say both A and B, therefore it is perfectly acceptable to discuss B under the heading A". I would go on to say, "even in cases where B is attested but A cannot be directly sourced (such as Stephen King's Dark Tower series)", but have refrained from adding that to the article until the issue is settled. Hopefully that clarifies the WP:OR issue; as to WP:NEO and WP:CBALL, they prohibit articles discussing an invented term or an extrapolated word (the example at CBALL is "septenquinquagintillion") that is not discussed elsewhere; but this is a signifier/signified confusion: the article in question isn't about a word or a term, it's about a sourced phenomenon (works of art with a highly symbolic number of parts, namely 7) and even the nominator here admits that the term used is the "predictable" one - he simply refuses to admit that it's also the sourced one. Granted it can't be sourced to a dictionary, only to a wide variety of other reliable sources, but if WP:COMMON ever applied it was here. Still, it's hard to fault Jay or Lo for insisting on ignoring WP:IGNORE - opening that one up would no doubt keep us here forever. --Paularblaster (talk) 14:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how JHunterJ feels about being invoked as an ally in this. The mini-essays you keep publishing contain many, many layers of original research and synthesis and WP:COMMON could not possibly apply. Anyway, none of this is even in the article. You certainly haven't understood WP:OR. You seem to be claiming that something is so obvious that it doesn't need a source but that by using several you can get there anyway. If you get your arguments published in a reputable journal they might one day appear on Wikipedia. I've written a short response at Talk:Heptalogy --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 18:42, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word does not appear in any major dictionaries and there are no sources devoted to the subject. According to WP:NEO that is explicitly the requirement for a word getting an article on Wikipedia, as being recently coined is not the operative part for determining inclusion. "It's old, so it's in" is not part of the inclusion criteria, old things are just more likely to have appropriate sources. This article fails WP:V by means of WP:RS and WP:N. This talk used by Paularblaster is the original research. You are not allowed to put any personal interpretation on the sources you are using. The synthesis proposed here is that "source A uses the word "Heptalogy"" and "source B discusses the cultural significane of the number 7", therefore an article on Heptalogy is deserved. That is the exact opposite of how you should make Wikipedia articles. Based on that set up, there should be an article on the number 7 with a small discussion, probably two paragraph max–WP:WEIGHT–, about published works in a series of seven without necessarily saying "heptalogy". Jay32183 (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You refer to WP:NEO as if it applies to all words, but it only applies to neologisms. Since heptalogy is not a neologism, it does not appear to me to run afoul of WP:NEO. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you didn't read what I wrote, or you don't understand the word operative. Either way, you don't have a valid point. Jay32183 (talk) 07:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Either you didn't read the intro to WP:NEO or you don't understand "recently coined". Either way, you don't have a valid point. WP:NEO: "Neologisms are words and terms that have recently been coined, ...", and WP:NEO then goes on to explain how articles on such recently created terms might merit inclusion. It does not address, at all, merits for inclusion of terms that were not recently coined, and your use of "operative" does not so expand the policy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did read and understand it. I already told you that it is not the importnant part of WP:NEO. You're using age as a technicality to allow using something that isn't actually a word that appears in a dictionary. Although to be called a neologism it must have been coined recently, but any made-up words that haven't caught on don't belong in Wikipedia. "Operative" means the same as "functional". There are still no valid sources to justify a an article, no matter what policy its based on. Jay32183 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. I feel that "neo"-ness is an important part of WP:NEO, from which it derives its name and everything else follows. Trying to apply the U.S. Constitution to the UK on the grounds that the geography is a technicality would be about as accurate. If there's a policy or guideline against articles on words that are neither in the dictionary nor neologisms, I'll throw my support behind moving the list portion of the article to a list article.-- JHunterJ (talk) 23:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason NEO is important and the reason people keep referring to it is that it makes pertinent observations about articles on words that are not in common use. It points out that one common mistake people make is creating articles listing lots of examples of unusual words while failing to find any cases of people writing about those words. WP:NEO confirms that such a practice constitutes original research. However old this word is, WP:NEO is relevant here.--Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 00:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it is meant to apply to words not in common use instead of just to neologisms, it should be rewritten and moved so that it applies to words not in common use instead of just neologisms, IMO. One of the cites includes a note about heptalogies, not just using the word (even though the entire article the cite references is not about heptalogies, and needn't be). The rest of the citations are not there as a "common mistake" but as a redress of the issues raised in the first AfD. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Looks rather like a well-referenced List of heptalogies to me. There is also a citation for the definition, and the word is logical and sufficiently frequent to be also used in wikipeadia, but I don't see how this amounts already to it being an article topic. So what about considering it a list and linking to List of film heptalogies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tikiwont (talk • contribs) 11:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Yep, if there is consensus for deletion, I also suggested "List of heptalogies". [1] as a possible move target. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  Ah, I see that now. So, I am in favour of moving with a redirect as alternative to deletion and but also to keeping as is. --Tikiwont (talk) 13:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a tough one, and I feel for the admin who closes this discussion. Reading over the discussion, I find there are compelling arguments on both sides. Still, I would tend to rely not so much on the Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms guideline, given the cited evidence that this is not a recently coined term. The article does not provide much discussion of the term, so what I think we have here is a well-cited list. Keep and move to List of heptalogies. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 13:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I think moving this to List of heptalogies is a very good idea. The lack of any source that discusses heptalogies is a problem that is unlikely to be overcome. My vote doesn't count but I too would say move to list of heptalogies. --Lo2u ^{(T • C)} 19:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does your vote not count? --Paularblaster (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to ask the same question. I believe I've voted in discussions I've launched before. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:34, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree entirely; at present it seems the only way of reaching consensus. --Paularblaster (talk) 00:30, 15 February 2008 (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.