Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dialogical 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   delete. &mdash; Scientizzle 21:12, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Dialogical Ecology

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Non-notable philosophical concept Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Sources are given as facebook and a blog. Hardly the repository for an academic dissertation on a notable philosophical concept! -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:22, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep:
 * Dialogical Ecology is today the subject of a Concentration Major in the Graduate Program in the Humanities at Prescott College and it also included as part of the Syllabus for courses in Introduction to Religion at Iona College. It is the subject of the Doctoral Dissertation at Columbia University's "The Spatial Culture of the Hasidic Community". There is also a lively discussion of Dialogical Ecology across internet sites and on Facebook. There have been a number of academic conferences and workshops organized through the Martin Buber Institute For Dialogical Ecology. The book "Buber-Zen and the Principles of Dialogical Ecology" will be out in 2011. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 19:05, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * That which is "notable" is not necessarily a criteria for the valuation of philosophical concepts. D.E. is a recognized concept and many "notables" are members of the MBIDE board of scholars. The other sources for the valuation of this philosophy have already been mentioned in the previous comments, especially being the subject of a Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia University.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 19:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * In order to have a Wikipedia article a topic must be notable and all notable philosophical concepts are described in academic literature. I am not saying it will not be notable in the future but if that becomes the case Wikipedia can then have an article on it. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 20:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete No evidence of notability. The article is essentially promotion, created by a single purpose account which edits only on "Dialogical Ecology" and Martin Buber. The arguments advanced by the article's author do not constitute grounds for thinking there is notability. We are told there is "a lively discussion of Dialogical Ecology across internet sites and on Facebook" (not reliable sources); "There have been a number of academic conferences and workshops organized through the Martin Buber Institute For Dialogical Ecology" (not independent sources); "That which is 'notable' is not necessarily a criteria for the valuation of philosophical concepts" (that is debatable, but in any case irrelevant, because we are not concerned with "valuation of philosophical concepts", but only with evaluation of a Wikipedia article) and so on. JamesBWatson (talk) 20:23, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * "notability...that is debatable, but in any case irrelevant". it may be irrelevant in terms of your personal interests or philosophical biases, but the fact that notability is not a valuative measure is not a "debatable" issue. Philosophy 101 students learns the extent to which some "not notable" ideas have over time become "notable" by the arbiters of such things. There are a large number of people interested in this subject and an entry on wikipedia may facilitate their further research. it is a philosophy focused on a number of issues, as explained in the article, that relate to the philosophy of martin buber, zen buddhism and quakerism. that is hardly a single issue, but even if it was, some important issues are "single issue" entries as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 21:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * it is nothing to do with my "personal interests or philosophical biases", it is to do with Wikipedia's inclusion criteria." JamesBWatson (talk) 12:51, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia documents things that are notable after the fact. It is not about bias or personal interest of editors - it is about WP guidelines. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Alan, then it seems to be a matter of "popularity". The subject matter is very notable with a significant segment of "philosophy of religion" scholars. Given the extent to which students and researchers avail themselves of Wikipedia, it is important, in my view, to provide them with an accessible entry via this medium. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 23:27, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess notability can often, but not always, be interpreted as popularity. Since the Dialogical Ecology is not in any peer reviewed literature it is not suitable for Wikipedia. If there was some stuff written about it then it possibly be incorporated into an existing WP article. If is a notable topic of its own right then it would deserve its own article. Since this is not the case in both these instances it is up for deletion. Academics and student using WP for research is quite a separate matter. Firstly no self-respecting student or academic uses WP for research. WP relies on the research of academics not the other way around. Student and academics use other sources of info for doing research. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 01:56, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Neutral The article right now is terrible, but I see 1 GNews hit (though it looks trivial), and 2 GBooks citations for this term. That may be enough to establish notability, but still seems on the weak side to me. Jclemens (talk) 02:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * The GNews hit that Jclemens mentions is a moderately long page which mentions Hune Margulies, and says that he is a director of the Martin Buber Institute for Dialogical Ecology. That is the only mention of "Dialogical Ecology", so it is certainly not significant coverage. The two hits from GBooks are single mentions in fairly substantial books. In addition, one of the books in question says "Such insights point to a kind of 'dialogical ecology' ", and it is not clear to me whether this is a generic use of the term, rather than a reference to Margulies's "Dialogical Ecology" as described in the article. In fact the Christian setting in the book seems to bear no relationship to the Zen Buddhist context of Margulies's "Dialogical Ecology" making it unlikely that the two are the same. However, even if they are the same, we still do not have anything that could by any remote stretch be regarded as substantial coverage in independent sources. (While on the subject of the lack of independent sources, I see that the sources given in the article are Facebook, blogspot, and a book written by Margulies, the inventor of "Dialogical Ecology".) JamesBWatson (talk) 09:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete - "Up and coming" concept that is as yet mindbogglingly obscure except in the mind of this single-purpose account. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  19:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

it is indeed a complex concept. in part its a reflection of the the philosophies on which it is based. zen, theravada buddhism (buddhadasa bikkhu), some strand of christianity such as quakerism, the judaic religious socialism of martin buber buber and the christian religious socialism of paul tillich. the confluence of these strands of religious philosophy comes together under the concept of dialogical ecology. and this is the way that is being taught in the colleges that have included DE into their curriculums. perhaps the article could be written better, i am, after all, a great "believer" in editorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gseawave (talk • contribs) 11:50, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete classic example of OR. no sources that it has been generally mentioned--or even noticed.   DGG ( talk ) 00:57, 24 October 2010 (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.