Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrosociology (2nd nomination)

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2008 November 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Without prejudice to the creation of the article proposed by Itsmejudith, but the current content is probably unhelpful for that too. Sandstein 16:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Astrosociology[edit]

The article fails to establish the notability of the area of research. Despite various links dug up during the first AfD, none of these have been incorporated into the article. Most of the papers in the scholar search appear to be authored by the same person, and nearly all of these appear to be associated with astrosociology.com. Moreover, an anonymous editor points out on Talk:Astrosociology that there are no publications on astrosociology appearing in reputable academic sociology journals. This clearly disqualifies the subject of the article as a non-notable academic field of study. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:53, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep the subject matter of the field is total speculation at this point, but that does not mean it cannot be notable. The present article is very close to PR for a particular POV, though. The subject is probably discussed elsewhere, though probably under variant names. That doesn't necessarily affect the possible validity of the article if there is no better name. DGG (talk) 00:57, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we don't keep articles based on their subject matter "probably" being discussed "elsewhere". Google Scholar returns 45 hits - all of them either part of astrosociology.com or written by Mr. Pass, who seems to be the originator and sole voice of this theory. These results do not bode well, especially for a recent (i.e., within the last decade) field of study. Badger Drink (talk) 03:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - after 2 years it is time to "fish or cut bait" ... forget potential... either this article can be properly sourced or it can not. Given that it is still poorly sourced after two years tells me that this is unlikely. Blueboar (talk) 04:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - of all the sources provided, only one is independent of the subject and I don't know how weighty that source is. I don't feel that notability is established. Reyk _YO! 04:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Several third-party articles were pointed out during the previous AfD. That "none of these have been incorporated into the article" is not a valid deletion criterion, because, as the saying goes, AfD is not cleanup and there is no deadline. I say weak keep due to the admittedly small number of independent sources, although this technically meets the general notability criterion in my opinion. Just remember that not everything needs to be "academic" to be notable. --Itub (talk) 09:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. None of the third party sources identified during the previous AfD are particularly high-quality. Neither of them was in a sociology journal or other highly regarded academic source, which I believe is what would be needed to support the article's own claim of notability as a subdiscipline of sociology. If we wanted a keep based on WP:FRINGE, entirely different sources would be needed for evaluating the field, which no one has so far presented, and it would require a rewrite of the article as well. siℓℓy rabbit (talk) 11:14, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is nothing in the article that establishes the notability of the subject. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:36, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 16:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It sounds like the topic failed to get any traction beyond the originator (various .com and .org included). The keep from the previous AfD was based on assumed potential rather than any third-party references. VG ☎ 16:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand. I suggest to move it to Sociology of outer space. We have a lot of other "sociology of" articles, and there is a recent contribution to this sub-specialism from a leading academic publisher: Dickens, Peter and Ormrod, James, Cosmic Society: Towards a Sociology of the Universe, Routledge, London 2007. This has been reviewed in several places, so there is a chance of expanding the article with additional good sources. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand. This sounds like an excellent idea. I've also seen the book Itsmejudith mentions and have been looking at other sources. My own academic study of sociology long ago leads me to the conclusion that the idea of such a field is valid, but whether is will end up being called astrosociology is another question. Let's have a broad article that can include this. Doug Weller (talk) 17:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and expand per Itsmejudith and Doug Weller. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:10, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The term is somewhat notable in literature ([1]). Object to renaming - "sociology of outer space" is much less frequent. That said, article seems like it needs expansion/rewriting and possibly some npov tags.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 17:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of those is a guide to doing a PhD, which suggests it as a novel disciplinary theory such as 'nanotheology' and comments it will have to start somewhere and that a PhD would be a good place to make the first move - sounds like that source doesn't see it as an existing discipline. Others reference the web site, Pass, etc. One, 'Ambassador Without Credentials', says "Everybody knows that only those with exceptional spiritual qualities are selected for astrosociology" and is listed on Amazon.com as an adventure and fantasy book. What is missing is lack of notability in the sociological literature, journals and books. No one is saying there is a field now called "sociology of outer space", just that an article on that can include astrosociology and other ventures at extra-terrestrial sociology. If you add 'sociology' to Piotrus's search, you are down to 6, one of them being the PhD tip book that seems to think it is a non-existent field. The most relevant book there is Cosmic Society:towards a sociology of the universe, and see this page [2] which says "There is a distinct danger that some fledgling projects to explore the relationship between society and the universe, such as the field of 'astrosociology' being developed by Jim Pass (2004). do little bur reproduce hegemonic common sense about the benefits of space exploration and development (Ormrod 2C05). Although ;istrosociology may draw public attention to under-researched issues, it will offer nothing if it does not do so critically. Some previous studies offer more hope for this kind of sociology." Doug Weller (talk) 10:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Question. It is my understanding that in AfDs we are discussing WP articles, and not the subject of the articles. Is that correct? If so, this article does nothing to establish the notability of the subject, notability being the grounds for votes to "Keep", or "Delete". Have I misunderstood something? Malcolm Schosha (talk) 11:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but if there is a possibility of rewriting an article so that notability is established, then that might be grounds to keep. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good, reliable, sources, and fails notability requirements. Verbal chat 18:31, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No articles in peer-reviewed literature means it's a non-notable non-academic field of study. All "sources" are by the same person, even the link to thespacereview.com. - Atmoz (talk) 01:15, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Essentially this article is entirely original research. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:44, 24 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's not a very good article but it's a subject that covers the influence of Star Wars and ET on modern society. UFOs!!! First person shooter games are all spawned from alien related fiction stories. It should, perhaps read, "The culture and social phenomenon resulting from human interest in outer space." Perhaps there is a better article under a different name but this topic covers the psycological effect of NASA on your ordinary person. I guess that fails to establish notability?!! Also the topic would cover Scientology as it was created by one of the most successful "astro" thinkers of his time. Star Trek!! Suggest "cleanup" tags for the article and "project needs help" tags as well. If you can find these links (nominator) you are bound to add them and improve the wiki, not tear it down for the laugh. 89.204.246.141 (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great, make this into a Scientology WP:COATRACK, that's exactly what was missing here. VG ☎ 10:05, 26 October 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.