Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecomorphism


 * 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 ~ Arjun  14:36, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Ecomorphism

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Represents a neologism and violates WP:NOR - only 5 hits from google, one of which appears to be a rival claim to primacy of the term here Mcginnly | Natter 13:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete as vanity, author even admits he made it up. Nardman1 14:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Speedy delete, I put a speedy tag on it as it violates Complete bollocks SmartGuy 15:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Guy, I've removed your speedy tag. This fella only registered today and I don't want to offend him - he hadn't even received a welcome so he can claim ignorance of policy with some justification. As a undergrad essay it's not complete bollocks (we all write them like that in architecture) but I agree it is per wiki-policy - but WP:NOR is fine to cite as a removal criteria for these purposes and doesn't risk losing a potentially productive new user (WP:BITE). Hope that's ok. --Mcginnly | Natter 16:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool by me, didn't notice he was recently registered, maybe a bit hasty on my part. Just trying to keep the house in order. SmartGuy 17:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete from the article: The term 'Ecomorphism' was first 'coined' by Rion Wight, a Cornell University architecture student,operating under the wikipedia account name of archnoir during February,5 2007 - he made it up yesterday, joined wikipedia and wrote it up. If this stays I might as well write articles about all my lyrics, cartoon characters, stories etc. Totnesmartin 17:14, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Userfy -- it's a decent-looking article from a graphic-design perspective; shame to waste it. Of course it can't stay in mainspace. --Trovatore 19:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete vain vanity in vain. JuJube 23:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, ecomorphic design has about 15,000 Google hits, and there are references back to 1992 cited here. Rather than deleting, perhaps this belongs there? -- ALoan (Talk) 12:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem is, do we know if the term Ecomophism (as 'coined' by Rion Wight) is the same ecomorphism as discussed by A. Turner et. al? This link, provided in the article doesn't mention the term. Don't get me wrong, the architectural approach mentioned in the article does describe a 'trend' (which can probably be traced back to Robert and Brenda Vale and others in the mid 70's, the concurrent oil crisis and James Lovelock's gaia hypothesis) - my problem is I'm not sure this approach is any different to green design, sustainable design, environmental design etc.etc.etc. (or whatever other articles we have on the subject), and I'm not sure the term is in wide spread usage and so may fail notablility criteria. Perhaps someone will set me straight.--Mcginnly | Natter 13:47, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm undecided about the article (architecture isn't my forte), but if the consensus is to delete it might be nice to save a temporary copy of the article in Archnoir's userspace, in case he's able to improve it (or if he'd just like a copy of his work for use elsewhere). -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 16:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * "Ecomorphism" is the most fantastically ugly, ill-formed, pretentious, clunking neologism. For that reason alone it should be strangled at birth. Twospoonfuls 20:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The article's been cleaned up and improved since the last vote, so I'm relisting it. Luigi30 (Ta&lambda;k) 13:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, someone removed the claim that Archnoir invented the term and tidied up the 'as long as yer arm' references, but the nomination rationale has not been addressed and edits such as this are even more worrying - The Guggenheim is hardly the best example of form follows function, indeed it's been widely criticised as being quite a bad building to hang art in (something about the curving walls and flat paintings if memory serves - but a great building for people watching) furthermore it's actually quite an expressive building evoking cadillacs, the auto-age etc. and then we get to the usual FLW ornamental glass skylight - conveniently omitted from the image - precisely how is this an example of form following function? Enough now, let's get rid. --Mcginnly | Natter 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)


 * speedy redirect to sustainable architecture or others as suggested by mcginnly. Let the user know to maybe add some of his knowledge there. Smmurphy(Talk) 06:29, 17 February 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.