Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pseudolife

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. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 11:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudolife

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

This is a mere definition, for a term being used in a very idiosyncratic way, DGG ( talk ) 08:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Biology-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 08:38, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:NOT - not a publisher of original thought... --Whiteguru (talk) 13:00, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain to me, how is this original thought? I haven't invented anything. The term exists on its own, and you can check our Wiktionary page for more information about the term. Here is the link: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudolife --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I know of no evidence that this term has ever been used by biologists. There are legitimate arguments about whether viruses are alive, with distinguished people on both sides (Patrick Forterre, for example, says that they are alive; Predestinación López-García says that they are not : I think most people, including me, agree with her), but they don't use the made-up term pseudolife. Athel cb (talk) 14:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's really unfair that you accuse this being made-up term, when even Wiktionary has page for it. You can check it here: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudolife --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:20, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- Rather than relying on my intuition I thought I should check on Web of Science if the term has ever appeared in a scientific paper. Yes, it has, just once, in a paper that is not in biology but in electrical engineering [Single Sampling Inspection Method of Smart Meter According to Reliable Life, Zhou, H; Chen, QF; (...); Zhu, XL, International Conference on Quality, Reliability, Risk, Maintenance and Safety Engineering (QR2MSE) 2012], and as far I can tell from the rather weird abstract the meaning is unrelated to the definition in the wikiparticle: "This paper presents fast sampling inspection method based on the accelerated degradation test of the smart meters. This method uses the pseudo-life data obtained by the accelerated degradation test, then conducts distribution analysis, including distribution fitting and goodness-of-fit test to determine the final distribution of the pseudo-life data, and then choose sampling inspection method of reliability based on the distribution of information, and conduct the sampling inspection." I couldn't get very far into the paper itself without hitting a paywall, but it starts like this: "Electricity has its overwhelming power from the beginning it comes out, and now it has been all over the homes of ordinary people, our lives are closely related to it..." Athel cb (talk) 14:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is scientific article that talks about viruses being "pseudo living entities". Here is the link: https://www.nature.com/articles/nrmicro2108-c1 --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the quote from the page: "We emphasize that although we might be able to call viruses 'pseudo living entities' or 'molecular parasites' we cannot deprive them of their status as living entities." --Pek~enwiki (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No where does this article use the word pseudolife and there is nothing to suggest that the authors were setting out to introduce a new term. Even if they were, a publication from 12 years ago hardly makes it notable. Athel cb (talk) 17:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pseudo living = Pseudolife. --Pek~enwiki (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia reflects, it does not drive. We could have an article on "pseudolife" in the sense of viruses if the scientific community at large began referring to this class of beings or characteristics. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:52, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's a good definition in https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/pseudolife, which is where it belongs. rsjaffe talk 23:09, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT --Assyrtiko (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not the job of Wikipedia to promote the use of jargon that the scientific community has not already embraced. We follow the consensus, rather than trying to lead it. Wiktionary, being an open wiki, is not a reliable source. Moreover, we're not a dictionary: we organize articles according to what things are, not what they're called. We already cover the question of whether or not viruses should be called "life" in Life#Viruses. An extra page with a vague title is not helpful. XOR'easter (talk) 20:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDICTIONARY. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:58, 19 August 2021 (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.