Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noogenesis

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, although there is consensus that the article is badly.in need of a rewrite. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Noogenesis[edit]

[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)

Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noometry. This article is being promoted by an account that seems attracted to the ideas of Alexei Eryomin among other devotees of ideas relating to noosphere. Much of this material was ported over from the previously deleted noometry article. Superficially, a lot of the references seem to be cherry-picked for identifying use of the term, but there is essentially no third-party notice of this as a concept independent of, say, the normal philosophical approach of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. This article, then, is serving as a rather dramatic example of WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:SOAP, and WP:NEO among others. It needs to be deleted as attempted redirects to, for example, noosphere is reverted by the article creator. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

- "This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia." [1] 128.70.165.112 (talk) 12:48, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. Synthesis of new woolly ideas with old woolly ideas. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information ecology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Eryomin. jps (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It claims that "Noogenesis is the emergence and evolution of intelligence". This is referenced to four dictionaries that... Lets just say that they are not among the usual major dictionaries that we would typically use to prove that a word exists. Furthermore, if this was true then this should be covered in the existing articles on intelligence and related subjects. It is not. The alleged creators of this theory(?) have biographical articles. One might expect it to be covered there. It is not. It seems to have been added to quite a lot of "See also" sections though. So this is... What? A neologism? A non-notable fringe theory? A POVFORK? A hoax? Who knows exactly? The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that it is not an encyclopaedic subject and that this article, and any walled garden of similar related articles, about this non-topic should be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks RS WP:TNT. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The current article appears to have incorporated a lot of Eryomin material that is difficult to find elsewhere. On the other hand, the topic is mentioned in relation to views on evolution (including some pseudoscientific) and in the context of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in some encyclopedias (see: [2], [3]). An older version of the article was this and also mentioned de Chardin but not Eryomin. Considering that we already have an article about de Chardin but that it has no content on noogenesis, a possible solution would be merging some minimal content there... —Paleo Neonate – 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep.
Comment: The phenomenon has been researched for 150 years. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1955) - not the first to use the term, in 1871 Hugh Doherty was first mentioned "noogenesis". "Noogenesis and Theory of Intellect" (2005) is mentioned in secondary sources, cited >150 times [4]. The article "Noogenesis" in the encyclopedia is in demand - in 5 years ~130,000 readings [5]. The concept of "Noogenesis" is common in the academic scientific environment - GoogleAcademic provides >900 links to authoritative sources [6]. The term "Noogenesis" is used in many books - Google books [7]. ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה (talk) 08:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה is now blocked as a sock of Aeremin, —Paleo Neonate – 16:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this looks more like WP:TNT and reverted to this version since the subject itself is probably noteable even though somewhat esoteric, but this article seems to be heavily influenced by one author and should be rewritten by someone knowledgeable. There are 926 mentions in google scholar. --hroest 21:56, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- It's a thought, but I note that the version you suggest has a tag that proposes merging to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin which makes sense considering that's the only notable use of the term that I can find and the other stages of "genesis" that he lists have uses and considerations that extend far beyond his philosophical jaunts. I submit that we can adequately cover what is meant by this term and how it was used by Teilard de Chardin at his biography. I have no objection to a redirect. jps (talk) 18:07, 6 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Indeed ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה and it is for this reason that the Noogenesis deserves to be on Wikipedia -Vincent Blais (talk) 22:16, 5 March 2021 (UTC) — Vincent Blais (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Merge, or revert to previous version. Whatever one may think about the validity of the concept, there's a notable topic here that pops up in Teilhardinism and not a few later works. But the current state of the article is not defensible - lots of synthesis, sprawling excursions, preaching without qualifying, and at times pretty much descending into gibberish. The old version linked above is actually a better article than that, if a few refs were ported over. Another option would be a partial merge to Noosphere, where it could be put in context at some length. Merging to Pierre Teilhard de Chardin would require condensing it down to a paragraph or so, I think - also an option but a lot more restrictive. --Elmidae (talk · contribs)
Comment 1. The emergence and evolution of intelligence ("noogenesis") (published in 1871, which appeared in Google books) is associated in time, ideology quantitative and qualitative evidence with the origin of species differences and evolution according to Darwin (1859). And this was 50-100 years earlier than the hypothetical themes of the "noosphere" from Vernadsky and Chardin (1955). 2. "The appearance of life - abiogenesis" - is not disputed. Why is "the emergence of intelligence - noogenesis" and its modern biological and neuroscience component questioned? Moreover, according to the Encyclopædia Britannica: "the appearance of nervous systems and thinking" refers to two of the five emergences of fundamentally new forms in evolution [8]. 3. Modern science has not stood still for 150 years, but only by 2015 the number of neurons and synapses in the brain was calculated. Noophelia 2.0 (talk) 11:28, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Noophelia 2.0 is now blocked as a sock of Aeremin, —Paleo Neonate – 16:13, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.Slatersteven (talk) 12:01, 7 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Save. Comment : According to suggestions in the comments of individual participants: removed references to "noometrics", and references to "authorship" in the text, while leaving references to authoritative sources, including a link to what is posted on "Google books"; a link to "noosphere" was added to the "see also" section. Please note that according to a number of editors, the article belongs to the "neuroscience". 128.70.165.112 (talk) 07:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:DINC. There was a stub but valid article before all the Eryomin stuff was added. The solution here is to revert all the Eryomin-pushing edits, not deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

... and I say this as the person who AfD'd the first of the these Eryomin articles at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noometry. Bondegezou (talk) 14:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be moving towards either redirecting and covering elsewhere or keeping/cleaning up. Further discussion along those lines, in particular, would be helpful.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Go Phightins! 16:34, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The term "noogenesis" is valid, however the current article has been filled with so much junk, it largely misses the point by yapping about nonsense like "the global intellectual system" and "Super Intellect realizing itself as Global Intelligence on Earth". Where neuronal "intelligence" came from and how it evolved is a fascinating question concerning evolutionary biology, neuroscience, and behaviorism - The evolution of intelligence is an especially important part of human evolution, as the intellectual faculties of humans (such as language, tool usage, etc) are its most distinguishing features. The current article is far too convoluted with irrelevant and insane gibberish to discuss this properly. If irrelevant junk cannot be stripped from the article, I suggest we WP:NUKEIT, and have it rewritten with actual biological basis, rather than the fantastical, overwritten nonsense the current article is filled with. 31.50.223.227 (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The last version before any Eryomin-related edits is this. Bondegezou (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As seen from Doherty and Chardin, this is an interdisciplinary broad concept. To overcome the problem of Kurt Goedel (complexity: to make the system know itself), modern infographics are provided. WP:BROAD – "an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts". There are related concepts (See also) and many books. So, it's clear that this is a notable topic which readers (130,000 readings of current version) will be expecting to find here. There have been attempts to address this and in XXI century and, if they have yet to fully mature that's ok per policy WP:IMPERFECT, WP:DEADLINE, the significant coverage criterion. 2.95.43.69 (talk) 07:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to admit being the same as ירמיהו - פרוגנוזה above. If so, this would be a second/double vote, and done under block evasion (WP:BE). I left a message on your talk page about how to file an unblock request. —Paleo Neonate – 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

IP Sock !vote stricken. Blablubbs|talk 02:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a major intellectual concept popularized by a major philosopher/scientist. Personally, I do not think it helpful, and I will admit I feel pretty much the same about most of that author's ideas. But that's not a reason why I hsould want it deleted. It's not pseudoscience. I don't even think there's such a concept as pseudo- for philosophy, or for ideas or generalizations such as this. for deletion. As one of his key concepts, the encyclopedia needs an article. It is far too complicated in its ramifications to include within the article in de Chardin ."the current article has been filled with so much junk," is not a reason for deletion, but for rewriting. DGG ( talk ) 06:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would you be willing to rewrite the article? As jps and Elmidae and other editors pointed out, there is a problem of synthesis, sprawling excursions, preaching without qualifying, and gibberish, and this quality problem has apparently just been getting worse, not better, because the only person interested in writing this article is also the source of all these problems, and has been trying to game this AFD with sock puppetry. It's no good suggesting we keep and expecting others to fix or rewrite it (see WP:JUNK). Additionally, this article is in the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, not Philosophy, hence my objections to its delirious philosophical content. 31.50.223.180 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to think this is as much philosophy as neuroscience--its essentially philosophical speculations about science, as in my opinion is much of the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. If I were to rewrite it I would emphasise the philosophic aspects, and i for speculations of this sort, I don't think it's particularly unclear as it stands. DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:08, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There seem to be enough peer-reviewed articles in Google Scholar to prove this is a valid term. Article could probably use a re-write... Oaktree b (talk) 17:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, this borders on WP:FRINGE but nevertheless has enough reliable sources, citations, and publications. Not overtly promotional and still informative. DmitriRomanovJr (talk) 17:40, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The old ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin might be notable, but what we have here is WP:SYNTH and a lot of pseudoscience. Nothing worth salvaging. Furthermore, who would even do the rewriting, since apparently the only people editing the article were the puppetmaster and their socks? Tercer (talk) 14:18, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- "Who's going to do the rewrite?" is a question I have for many articles I see come through AfD, this among them. XOR'easter (talk) 15:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a well known, important and legitimate subject described in books and other publications. No, the Noosphere is a different subject, just as evolution and biosphere are different subjects, and this is not only Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. My very best wishes (talk) 16:40, 29 March 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.