Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthropotechnic

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 Keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anthropotechnic

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

WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:N. The article enumerates a number of different examples where the term is used and attempts to define it from those examples. While the word definitely exists, it does not appear to be the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Perhaps it belongs on Wiktionary? Pburka (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Incorrect use of WP:SYNTHESIS, which governs the use of sources, and only peripherally governs article content, let alone article subjects; the latter is what we determine at Articles for Deletion. Anarchangel (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a whole book on it, by Jérôme Goffette of Claude Bernard University Lyon 1. He even gives the name translated into English on page 69 and mentions Peter Sloterdijk's "anthropotechnics" on page 70. Of course, this article is badly written, and ascribes this to Willem Schinkel, even though Schinkel clearly ascribes it to Sloterdijk if one reads the source cited in the article. Uncle G (talk) 23:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Goffette, Jérôme (2006). Naissance De L'anthropotechnie: De La Medecine Au Modelage De L'humain (in French). Vrin. ISBN 9782711618415.
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Gongshow ^Talk 00:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Which is as inappropriate as the vocab-stub on the article, really. This isn't be an article on vocabulary. It's at least supposed to be an article on anthropotechnics. Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - surprisingly someone has done a detailed analysis of the frequency of various more or less synonymous terms such as "human factors engineering", "industrial ergonomics", "anthropotechnics", "engineering psychology" (HF definitions). "anthropotechnics" seems to be a fairly uncommon term, but it is used sometimes. CodeTheorist (talk) 21:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- The original German "Anthropotechnik" is probably more common, although they didn't look at other languages. Witness de:Anthropotechnik. But this is only really relevant inasmuch as we have to know that people like M. Sloterdijk don't necessarily write in English, and so we have to check for more than one keyword. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 23:58, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit down but keep - as an art term, it is possibly notable; see Effets de soir. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This reads an awful lot like a disambiguation page, should it be one? The meaning of the term seems somewhat divergent in its various contexts that are presented. I'm not familiar with the term beyond what I've read in the past few minutes, but is it related enough to other topics like Human–computer interaction (for the technology usage, for example) that it could have redirect pages for its various meanings leading to sections of such corresponding pages? Zujua (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the German wiki article seems to indicate a more unified definition, is that more accurate? It also seems to exclude the term's meaning in the arts; I looked at the source listed for "Oedipus Rex" painting, and I don't see the term there - is it often actually used in that context? Zujua (talk) 04:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ItsZippy ^{(talk • contributions)} 14:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Term denotes a concept, not just a dicdef. Does not improvement. Stedrick (talk) 14:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:DICDEF. Stuartyeates (talk) 09:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

keep Not Synthesis, as this article does not have any original research. Sources indicate that the concept passes the GNG with mentions in many books and scientific papers, and, if developed, should make an interesting and informative article. The fact that it is sparse now is not a good reason to delete. The Steve 01:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is a stub and needs improvement, but there seems to be just about enough coverage in reliable sources to justify keeping this article. CodeTheorist (talk) 06:51, 29 July 2012 (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.