|
Astrosociology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore | cache | AfD)) (AfD2)
A notable subject, difficult to find reference to because of one Dr Jim Pass high hit rate on search engine. Deleted as non notable with 8 delete votes and 7 non delete votes. Suggested by closing admin to recreate the article as Sociology in outer space which is not the entire subject and completely original research provided by a voter in the deletion discussion. Some claims were that Dr Jim Pass created this topic in 2004 (nonsense). A sadly overlooked and under-regarded topic but, the study of human behavior as affected by the awareness of space, nontheless: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] Although good references to astrosociology are difficult to seperate from reference to Dr Jim Pass and his website, the truth is out there. Although the deletion panel made comments such as "A search of Google Scholar shows a book suggesting that astrosociology" would be suitable for a student and therefore it is not notable on the highest level vis a vee delete the article (what??), I looked at the same search the guy linked and found dozens of references some old and the newer ones suggesting that this guy Dr Jim Pass was making the subject notable indeed (including many seminars at AIAA) A search of Google Books shows two 1960s NASA books, an African culture book, and quite a few others mainly American university books all about or in large part about astrosociology (which is minute for the topic). The deletion panel claims that astrosociology was started by Dr Jim Pass in 2004. Nonsense, and very common nonsense on the internet, but nonsense anyway. Even he claims he intends to broaden the subject not claims to have created it as reported in the deletion topic (and also misreprested as such occasionally on search hit sites). One of the editors on the deletion panel claimed that after two years the article can show a proper source or not. The only reference source on the article was www.astrosociology.com and a search for astrosociology shows over 3500 hits from all sorts of websites (mainly educational) almost entirely referencing that website as some sort of authority. I agree that the article was not sufficient and perhaps not much work was ongoing on it but it certainly has some strong points of support regarding reference and notability. The arguement for the deletion was to the contrary of these facts. The first time I remember setting eyes on the term "astrosociology" was on this deletion request but for me it is an obvious topic covering the effect being aware of space has had on human behaviour. It is surprising that the topic lacks reference or notable works and that should be acknowledged routinely I think with astrosociology as a prime example. Space topics have had countless dramatic effects on human behaviour. Search engines make it appear that Dr Jim Pass is the only basis of astrosociology but that is obviously not the case. Part of the deletion panel put forward deletion on the basis that "astrosociology is not a recognised discipline in the field of sociology" but neither is astrology in the field of astronomy (both covered by astrosociology lol).
~ R.T.G 22:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like Itsmejudith's suggestion did not carry the day. At least, it wasn't implemented. She suggested renaming and retaining the article. It was deleted. II | (t - c) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- But that would be nonsensical, astrosociology relates not only to outer space and not only to Dr Jim Pass (please note that many of the deleting arguments were incorrect in basis). Sociology in outer space would be distinctly defined by science fiction and the Mir station. Astrosociology would cover SETI, NASA, etc. Please note I entered this here because a) 8 vs 7 is not a concensus, b) the deleting arguments made false claims which must be questioned. What about these two points? + point "Sociology in outer space", well only one guy mentioned that and he appeared to make it up...? Is that a regular concensus or a test one ? (lol) ~ R.T.G 01:47, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Overturn deletion No way that 6 keeps v. 7 deletes is consensus to delete (I'm excluding the anon keep with 1 contribution). II | (t - c) 02:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The anon was mine. My IP rotates and I had some trouble with my account although all of my constructive work is on Simple English. ~ R.T.G 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Disclaimer: I can't view the original article. The second AfD is more strongly biased to delete than a vote count suggests: The keeps are "weak" or "if renamed and subject changed". Process followed, closer got consensus right, no new evidence supporting an overturn. IMO. Unusual? Quite TalkQu 15:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was not broad and focused on the recent work of Dr Jim Pass, citing only from one website, but it was all valid and didn't plug that guy although he does talks for AIAA and stuff. It was on topic just far from complete in any way. ~ R.T.G 03:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. When the number of contributors supporting keep/delete is roughly the same, the closing admin is entitled to refer to the strength of arguments (both expressed, such as "weak keep", and how relevant they are to the debate and to Wikipedia policies). The closer acted entirely correctly. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, I will offer to attempt tearing them apart by referencing the WP policies and with lack of response after a day or so I will just list it all to see what people think. Particular incorrectness was found in the search engine referencing policies per the delete arguments. ~ R.T.G 15:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse deletion. The deleted article on Astrosociology can for the moment still be seen in the Google cache. It is very thinly referenced, citing only works by Jim Pass, the promoter of the new field. You would expect to see unusually good sources for a claim that an entire new academic field had been successfully created. See WP:Avoid neologisms for the amount of evidence we normally require to accept that a new term is valid and deserves an article. EdJohnston (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Well this one is plain ignorant of my reasons for entering the article. Quote "new field", "new academic field", "new term". I claim to have supplied evidence that the deleteing comments were incorrect. If you do not wish to look in to that, you shouldnt really enter any opinions. ~ R.T.G 02:16, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I had imagined you would like to improve the article to respond to the problems found by the AfD reviewers. (DRV discussion sometimes leads to a plan for revising the article). Apparently you don't believe they found any valid problems, and the article should be kept as it stands. You're entitled to stick to your opinion, but then, we're not required to overturn the AfD either. EdJohnston (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I am of the opinion that the article needs improving but also have found evidence that the deletion contributors were, for the large part, incorrect partially in the same manner as with your own input here. You really don't have to check out the information I have provided before you give an opinion but that's not a very constructive review. I am not saying you should not give your opinion for the deletion of this article, only that you should try to relate your review to the information I have provided or the review was of no point. Not what I believe, what I have found I am not notable in any way to give my personal opinions any weight for that sake (lol). I have supplied proof of 1960s NASA references books with sections of Astrosociology and essays written in the 1980s. Dr Jim Pass only began his work in 2004 establishing that it is not a new field. As for the notability of Dr Jim Pass, it seems he is entirely notable and the assertion on the article suggesting he claims it to be his own new field is misleading by his own website. I am not familiar with astrosociology at all so I hope my efforts to reference it can be acknowledged a little bit. Your last sentence confuses me somewhat. Perhaps I waste my time but I assume good faith nontheless. ~ R.T.G 16:00, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- It is hard to impose ironclad rules on the DRV process. This is a stage where problem-solving is known to occur. If the reviewing editors can see a path for keeping the article, after necessary changes, they will often agree to that. So far you haven't asked for the article to be userfied (placed in your user space to allow further improvement). That request is often granted. However you seem to be very concerned about the original deletion being unjust. From my own experience, the original deletion decision is not unjust, but is quite typical for articles that are very narrowly sourced. If you know something about this field, I'm puzzled as to why you wouldn't volunteer to get more sources and come back here when you are ready. That could lead to an acceptable compromise. EdJohnston (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't, I just happened to troll across the deletions, looked into this, found the arguments to be incorrect and felt obliged to make people aware of that. It's not very important. Leave it until someone makes a complete article. ~ R.T.G 18:47, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
|
