Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecotrophobiosis

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:27, 6 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ecotrophobiosis[edit]

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

This seems to be in violation of WP:NOT#ESSAY, because it is structured like an academic paper and seems to contain original research. The article was created by "Prof. Dr. L. Horst Grimme", and thus is probably an attempt to attract attention to his work on the subject. Claritas § 10:32, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's fairly clear who Hgrimme (talk · contribs) is, and that xe has a conflict of interest when it comes to concepts that xe has coined and that the world has as yet failed to take on board. And that is the situation at hand. The only thing known as ecotrophobiosis in the world at large is trophallaxis. "Ecotrophobiosis" was the name that E. Roubaud coined for it in 1916, but William Morton Wheeler's 1918 name of trophallaxis was what actually stuck in the end. Textbooks still mention Roubaud's alternative name, though, so ecotrophobiosis should redirect there. I can find no evidence that M. Grimme's concept has gained any traction in the world at large.
And much of this article, it should be noted, doesn't even address the subject, but rather provides information on other subjects that we already have articles on — as a lengthy prelude to explaining why the new concept, with the new name that the world at large outside of its coiners has yet to acknowledge, is a good idea. The sections in this article on nutrition, nutrification, and food production overlap our existing fairly lengthy and more detailed articles on those subjects. However, the great shame of this article is that the section explanining trophobiosis would have made a welcome addition to trophobiosis, which is a stub that could do with exactly that sort of expansion.
That last is the problem, as far as I'm concerned. It aside, this article is a synthesis of superficial discussions of other subjects, that we already have articles on, brought together to support a new concept being promoted here by one of its coiners, that hasn't been independently acknowledged by the world at large. This is not what Wikipedia is about. Uncle G (talk) 14:48, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with the section on trophobiosis is that it is entirely unsourced. While the information would be welcome, citations to reliable sources would probably be needed if such a large body of text was to be merged. Claritas § 15:01, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Read it again. It directly cites de Bary, Francis Chaboussou, and (Wolfgang, I think) Tischler, for starters. Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're right - I was reading the "Trophobiosis of man as an ecosystem approach" section. Per Wikipedia:Merge and delete, however, there may be issues with deleting the article and keeping content, due to attribution. Claritas § 18:08, 27 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - Hence the problem. Uncle G (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Either we salvage this, or Delete it. It's not notable, and it's an essay. Delete. --Rockstonetalk to me! 03:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I will defer from voting due to the strange nature of this article and my ignorance of the subject in general. Clearly an attempt at a collegiate work of some sort, the tone of the piece is non-standard and the references (if they are indeed refs) are listed as literature and in the wrong format for Wikipedia. Hard to say delete or keep, but certainly needs lots of work if it is to be kept. Nineteen Nightmares (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)Nineteen Nightmares[reply]
Delete term used only in a very few papers; not yet notable. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 4 July 2010 (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.