Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information ecology

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. Consensus was that the subject is notable having wp:significant coverage to meet WP:GNG but the article needs a major cleanup or rewrite of its content. (non-admin closure) ~ Aseleste (t, e | c, l) 09:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Information ecology[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)

This looks like a WP:SOAPbox for the ideas of Alexei Eryomin who, frankly, is also lacking in notability (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Eryomin). This particular article is either promoting his ideas or simply pulling together sources that happen to use the term to mean a variety of things. There doesn't seem to be a coherent subject here beyond WP:SYNTH. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noogenesis and previous AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noometry. jps (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. That said, if the term actually means anything real then maybe it can be redirected to the article about that. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:55, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Information" and "ecology" are common words that are readily mashed together, so there are plenty of opportunities for WP:SYNTH here. We don't need to encourage that. Google Scholar dredges up many papers that use the text string "information ecology" (with many different meanings), less than 1% of which mention Eryomin. So, there isn't a well-defined topic, and Eryomin isn't the center of whatever there is. XOR'easter (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Compare knowledge ecosystem which is from B-school buzzwordology. jps (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and clean up. The article was better before the Alexei Eryomin material was added. Don't delete the article because of that material: revert it to what used to be there. WP:DINC! Bondegezou (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is an older version of the article, before most of the Eryomin material. It's more coherent and well referenced. Bondegezou (talk) 14:54, 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]

Weak keep per WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG, although it needs a little more work to get it past terrible. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:36, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is a broad concept – "an article that addresses a concept that may be difficult to write about because it is abstract, or because it covers the sometimes-amorphous relationship between a wide range of related concepts". There are several books about it by this title and, as noted above, there are related concepts such as knowledge ecosystem. So, it's clear that this is a notable topic which readers will be expecting to find here. There have been attempts to address this since 2004 and, if they have yet to fully mature that's ok per our policy WP:IMPERFECT. See also WP:DEADLINE which explains that we don't have one. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:12, 13 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bondegezou (version without the problems mentioned by nom exists), Bearian and Andrew Davidson (the concept seemingly passes the significant coverage criterion even if it is a broad concept which varies in meaning across the literature). Sincerely, InsaneHacker (💬) 13:19, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 11k hits on Gscholar indicates the concept is notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those were actually about the specific topic in this article and not just people using the phrase to mean various other things? --DanielRigal (talk) 18:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Information theory. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:07, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seeking input on whether the suggested merge is a better solution?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Several of the concepts covered by the article seem like they might pass GNG but the article doesn't seem to be clearly about one thing: I'm not convinced there is a 'broad concept' here, as suggested by Andrew Davidson that covers both the 'informatics applied to ecology' described in the biology section and the user-centric knowledge management approach described in the SPI section. I don't think a good delete rationale exists and beyond deleting the problematic Eryomin puffery, figuring out what to do with the content is maybe best done on the article talk page without the AfD countdown running. Perhaps we should close as 'no consensus'? — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:14, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The content is bad, so it shouldn't be merged. Vague, variously uncited or cited to poor references, synthesis based on woolly metaphors. The little that isn't "oh, a book with this title exists" is copyvio. And yes, that applies to the old revision suggested above as a good one to revert to. Keeping this around actively makes Wikipedia's science coverage worse. If kept, it would need a complete rewrite. XOR'easter (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per Bearian and Andrew Davidson passes WP:SIGCOV. Ambrosiawater (talk) 09:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep definitely a well covered concept that passes notability critieria due to coverage in expert literatuere -- that is not a judgement of the content itself. Sadads (talk) 13:43, 28 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.