Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrosociobiology


 * 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. Davewild (talk) 17:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Astrosociobiology

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Non-notable neologism, article created by the originator, no use outside of originator's personal definition. Michaelbusch (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep  Delete based on what links here page . Most astrophysics terms seem like neologisms to me.Gtstricky (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is that there is no use of the term outside of Wikipedia, and at least some of those wikilinks were added by the originator of the term (User:Gdvorsky). This seems like link-farming to me. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Prove that User:Gdvorsky originated the term. Lay the evidence out here, please.  The one link you provided on the talk page merely says that he created the page.  That's not proof of originating the term.  Also, the notability claim may have some validity (although Wikipedia has opened a few cans of worms with deletions on those grounds, so let's be careful, hmm?)  I did spot some interesting references, but I'm not sure they aren't Gdvorsky.  Moonsword (talk) 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * was the creator of this article and of postgenderism, exosociobiology, xenosociobiology, xenosociology, megatrajectory, and Intelligence Principle. He added links to this article to Drake equation here, to sociobiology here, to astrobiology here, and to Fermi paradox here. But the most telling is that George Dvorsky (which is mostly based upon autobiographical sources, note) tells us outright that Dvorsky invented this and three other concepts and added articles about them to Wikipedia.  Please don't waste everyone's time with "prove that Dvorsky originated this" arguments.  Dvorsky boasts of creating these things and of creating Wikipedia articles about them.  They were, he states, made up in the shower one day. One of the neologisms that Dvorsky boasts of having in Wikipedia,, has already been discussed and deleted. Uncle G (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: I have removed the section on Wikipedia editing from George Dvorsky, since it isn't really that notable - and links almost entirely to deleted pages. Michaelbusch (talk) 22:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Delete Good argument, Uncle G. The blog you mention seems to have quite a bit of 'looky me, I made up a word' to it (on Dvorsky's part as well as others), which if allowed to propagate, can only lead to bad things.  If what the nom said is the case re: use outside Wikipedia, then not understanding the term is hardly cause for holding on to it.  This should be discouraged by a speedy delete and a weeding out of other such terms in this blog (as appropriate, of course).  Psinu (talk) 14:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Reluctant delete&mdash;While at first glance the article seems decently well put together, I could find no evidence that this is an actual scientific discipline. A "speculative scientific study" almost seems like a contradiction. This is more like reasoned philosophy than testable science.&mdash;RJH (talk) 17:31, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per nomination and other comments. I don't have much to add. It's an exemplar of neological original research, and the content doesn't even have much in common with the neologism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 22:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, trimming and moving to a new title if necessary. A big chunk of the material currently in this article was ported over from Kardashev scale, which had nothing to do with the originator of this article. Why shouldn't we have an article about the general concept of theoretical work on extraterrestrial intelligence? It's a subject that's been treated seriously in other sources and we do have some references already. Bryan Derksen (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not the question. The question is "Why shouldn't we have an article on astrosociobiology?".  And the answer to that question is that, contrary to what the article claims, there is no such field of scientific study.  You'll find no schools or universities teaching courses in it, and no-one publishing books, papers, or articles in it.  It's an entirely fictitious field of endeavour &mdash; the product of one man making things up in the shower.  That editors have over the intervening period added a hodge-podge of content taken from various other articles (Kardashev scale isn't the only one.  Several other articles have been copied wholesale into this one.) into a single article that is about a non-existent field of study, with no possible coherent goal in mind for how these subjects are joined up in the literature (because there is no literature), is classic original research.  If these topics indeed do belong together under the umbrella of extraterrestrial intelligence, then extraterrestrial intelligence is where they should be, not here. Uncle G (talk) 02:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, contrary to what Dvorsky claims, he didn't actually invent the entire concept himself. The very fact that later editors have found a whole bunch of additional content and sources to add to this is evidence of that. And if this stuff does belong in extraterrestrial intelligence (I have no objection to a merge myself) then that's definitely a keep situation because we can't legally merge and delete. Bryan Derksen (talk) 02:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You can if the content was taken from other articles in the first place, which much of this content was. I've already pointed you to the edit where you yourself took content wholesale from another article.  Deleting this article doesn't prevent a merger from the original articles that the content came from. And your reasoning is invalid.  The fact that later editors found a whole bunch of additional content means nothing, because that content is on a range of disparate subjects.  Editors have found zero sources on the subject of astrosociobiology.  (I challenge you to point to even one source, apart from Dvorsky who made the idea up, on the subject.  I also challenge you to cite a source showing that someone other than Dvorsky made up the concept of astrosociobiology.  I've pointed to him saying outright that he did.  You need to prove your claim that someone else invented this concept.  I've actually done research on this, and I've found no-one else.  Please demonstrate how you know that someone else did.)  The content defining the methodologies and assumptions of the field is all simply made up, by Dvorsky himself (see Dvorsky's initial version of the article, which is a simple elaboration of his web log posting), in the shower as he said. The additional content, what there actually is of it, is editors subsequently adding to the article, assuming that what was previously there was correct.  The sources used by those editors, when they have used them at all, have been on the subjects of the Intelligence Principle and megatrajectory &mdash; which this article is simply duplicating.  And that is how this article has arisen: a mish-mash of other article content copied and pasted here, along with a whole bunch of original research, defining a field of science that does not exist outside of Wikipedia as an introduction and basis. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it matters who coined the term since it's a hodgepodge of pre-existing terms, however the material could be related to a storytelling term for creating a possible extraterrestrial culture in a fictional universe, the sort of thing that happens in videogames, comics, and cartoons all the time.--Lichtlied (talk) 16:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is that he didn't just coin the name, he also invented the whole idea, and then came here and wrote up his invention. Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And bragged about it to the world (or at least some portion of it). I'm totally with Michaelbusch on this one... drag it (and its co-conspirator terms as appropriate) behind the barn and kill it.  Psinu always forgetsto sign 19:42, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Please end this. The problem is not 'could this word mean something'.  It is 'this word is not used by anyone' and the article was created for the sole purpose of promoting something Dvorsky thought up while taking a shower. Michaelbusch (talk) 02:53, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * And so the problem would be completely solved if we just 'moved the article to a different name', therefore no longer using the forbidden neologism, yes? Bryan Derksen (talk) 07:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Because it would still be an article about something that doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia.  There's simply no such field of scientific study as the article claims, and what the article says about the field of study is a wholesale invention.  Uncle G (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * But again, it's not. A lot of the stuff in the article is referenced, it's from sources other than Dvorsky. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:56, 10 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 'Delete A concept and word invented by Dvorsky for the purpose of inserting it into wikipedia, used by nobody else anywahere. The subject matter is covered in full by other articles. DGG (talk) 08:33, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really, as content was moved from some of those articles to this one. Bryan Derksen (talk) 10:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Bryan, enough. If you are going to vote, please do so.  But be aware that there is nothing in this article that doesn't already exist elsewhere.  All Dvorsky did was to think up a word, make a plausible definition, and then cobble together an article out of pieces of other articles, such as astrobiology and SETI.  Based on the above, do we have consensus for deletion? Michaelbusch (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. If there was ever a place where no original research applied this is it. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per cogent arguments of Michaelbusch, ScienceApologist, DGG, and others above. Tim Ross ·talk  01:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)


 * 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.