Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collaborative information seeking


 * 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 is to keep in some form, discussion re. merging can continue on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Collaborative information seeking

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is nominated per WP:SPIP. It is created primarily to promote its creator's work (WP:COI, WP:SPA, WP:BOOKSPAM). The topic is more widely known as social search. Adblock2 (talk) 01:50, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I have to disagree with this assessment. Collaborative information seeking is NOT widely known as social search. If you do believe it, please cite your sources. ShahChirag (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:33, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Fails WP:GNG and is pure WP:PROMO. Qworty (talk) 06:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep per WP:GNG - What? Academic peer-reviewed research publications are not considered self-published, they're the most reliable of all reliable sources. The guidelines against spam should not be used to delete coverage of scientific research, they're fundamentally different things. These two articles contain a respectable collection of references from different authors with a high count of citations. If there's a conflict of interest, the community's responsibility is to review and assess the credibility of each individual claim, not to sweep everything under the carpet. The reasons why this content may be non-neutral have not even been addressed at the article's talk page; deletion should be a last resort if it was impossible to fix the problems, which seems unlikely. Diego (talk) 08:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * This is a straw man argument. Nobody here asserted that peer-reviewed publications are self-published. It is WP:COI that prevents those sources from being reliable sources, not the way they were published. Academic papers are generally reliable sources unless there is COI. Researchers have to disclose COI. If you look at the edit history, nearly all references in this article are first-party sources added by their authors. These are not independent third-party or secondary sources that WP:GNG calls for. If there is still confusion, see WP:Third-party_sources Adblock2 (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * There's a severe misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:COI somewhere in your argument. The fact that an academic paper is reliable has nothing to do with the behavior of its author on Wikipedia, it's only related to how the other independent researchers have received it. You should be reading policy, not essays (see WP:SCHOLARSHIP - a research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been vetted by one or more other scholars."). An article that has been peer reviewed, published by a university and cited by others is not "first party". Please read WP:SELFCITE where it says that "Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason". Remember that editing under a conflict of interest is not forbidden, it's only discouraged because researchers are likely to get neutrality policies wrong - something that other editors can fix (and should), not delete. If a neutral editor agrees with the edits made, those are perfectly fine. Once again, content discussion should be decided on content policy, not behavioral guidelines. The author's biography is WP:SELFPROMOTION and should be deleted, but the articles about science aren't the same thing at all; don't throw the baby away with the dirty bath water. Diego (talk) 20:29, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge Seems similar to social search and social information seeking which are all notable topics. Warden (talk) 09:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator's arguments are, at best, evidence for redirecting or merging; either we should keep this article or redirect it to social search. Moreover, authors are welcome to cite their own works if said works have been properly published in peer-reviewed contexts, and the only reason we would delete a page that's safe in this way is if it were so heavily self-promotional that it qualified for speedy deletion as promotional or for WP:TNT treatment; after looking over the article, I'm confident that it qualifies for neither of them.  Merging is a discussion that can be held separately; I have no opinion on it.  Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree that redirect is the best solution in this case. My thinking was that this discussion is necessary because redirect would delete the current promotional content. Merge would be a less desirable option. Merge runs a risk of making social search biased towards covering the work of a couple of researchers who are active at self-promotion at the expense of majority of other researchers who follow the guidelines and avoid making COI edits. This is a common problem I see in many articles. Adblock2 (talk) 16:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * If you want to redirect it, why don't you withdraw the AFD? AFD is supposed to be used in circumstances when you want to see a link to the article turn red, not when you want it to send you to a different page.  Nyttend (talk) 21:45, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep A simple search of Google Books or Google Scholar will turn up reams of references. Too quick to nominate it. scope_creep (talk) 00:03, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I agree. Please consider this: 'search' and 'information seeking' are not the same. And 'social' and 'collaborative' are not the same. These words should not be used interchangeably, and so these topics should not be merged. ShahChirag (talk) 20:46, 18 April 2013 (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.