Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edusemiotics


 * 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 redirect to Biosemiotics. There seems to be agreement that there is not enough substance here for an article. Editors are divided, however, over the question of whether the content should be merged to a semiotics-related article. The redirect reflects that lack of consensus in that it enables subsequent discussions to reach consensus about what, if anything, should be merged from the history.  Sandstein  22:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Edusemiotics

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A neologistic discipline. It appears the term is used only by a narrow circle of its proponents. article is tagged since 2014, but still in a sorry state, which speaks of dubious notability. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:12, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - Looks like there is enough coverage in books to qualify for notability. Meatsgains (talk) 02:43, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree with the argument. Did you look at authors of the books? - all the same author. Wikipedia needs independent coverage. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:24, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:41, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:42, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Merge (very selectively – a couple of sentences) to Semiotics per WP:UNDUE and GNG. As other contributors note, there are a few reliable sources, but nearly all of them are written by one of the two scholars who originated the approach. Compare law and semiotics or theatre semiotics, each mentioned in the general article but lacking individual coverage. This may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. (By the way, take the Google Books search with a grain of salt. At least one of the books that search returns [Kaufman 1995], and likely others, does not mention edusemiotics, nor education or semiotics. There may well be some funky lemmatisation or other Google-fu at work.) Cnilep (talk) 01:07, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. incomprehensible jargon. If someone want s to write an understandable article on this, they should be encouraged, but I'm not sure its possible--the topic maybe too vague to permit encyclopedic coverage.  DGG ( talk ) 07:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge to Semiotics, if there is anything worth saving here among the fluff, (perhaps only the title). If there is genuine meat here, then it can be explained in plain language, and cited to multiple, independent, reliable sources. As Ernest Rutherford said to one of his young researchers who told the cleaning lady that nuclear physics was too complicated to explain, "Young man, if you can't explain it to her, you can't explain it to anyone". I doubt there's anything like so much substance here. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete, and oppose merger to semiotics. This is almost exclusively the pet topic of Inna Semetsky and (to a lesser extent) Andrew Stables. If Semetsky were notable, I'd support a merger to her article; but I don't believe she is, and in any case, there's no current article to merge to. This is simply not a sub-topic that has been given independent coverage by others in the field of semiotics. In a very real sense, Semetsky is something of a fringe thinker in that regard (when she's not writing about this sort of thing, she's writing papers on the psychology and symbolism of tarot; Martin Gardner considered her work psuedoscience). Of the sources provided, none of them are independent of Semetsky, including the 2010 piece by Danesi—it is the forward to a volume edited by Semetsky (and, indeed, that forward makes it clear that he is using the term directly in the context of Semetsky's work). The only truly independent examination of Semetsky's concept of "edusemiotics" that I'm able to locate is in this paper from Global Studies of Childhood, which is... well... you really have to read it to get the full effect. I don't wish to cast aspersions regarding the quality of scholarship in that field or that journal, but I struggle to see any such paper could be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * If it's WP:FRINGE then we should delete it. Sounds as if that's probably the case? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, and the corresponding guideline is WP:NFRINGE. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please set out your reasons for believing it meets that criterion, then; I am open to evidence, as certainly are other reviewers. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason is simple: zero independent discussion of the theory. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to biosemiotics. I have stubbified tha article based on some reliable independent (of Semetsky and Stables) sources in the form of book reviews published in academic journals:
 * Review of Edusemiotics
 * Review of Inna Semetsky, The Edusemiotics of Images: Essays on the Art–Science of Tarot
 * There is also a university course on edusemiotics but I don't know that this counts as an RS. The reviews may not be in enough depth to pass notability, but the basic facts in the stub are verified and may be suitable for a merger. As this is in the biosemiotic tradition, I recommend a merger to biosemiotics; due weight would be easier to achieve in that article than in semiotics, which is a huge field. --Mark viking (talk) 19:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd be willing to concede that the independent reviews of Semetsky's works contribute to her potential notability, but I don't think they really serve as independent examinations of this field/concept. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:07, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The reviews are bunk. They call Inna Semetsky a "prominent scholar". A book that applies the obfuscatory language of semiotics to reading of Tarot cards is one huge red flag, for credentials both the writer and a positive reviewer. Staszek Lem (talk)


 * Strong oppose of merging to biosemiotics - there is no slightest evidence they have any relation. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, biosemiotics is mentioned at several points in the first review article. Read it for yourself. The relation is also discussed in the primary sources, too, such as Semetsky's book. You are welcome to hate this topic and claim all sources are bunk, but it doesn't change the fact that the sources discussing edusemiotics assert a biosemiotics connection. --Mark viking (talk) 01:03, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes Semetsky has a section about biosemiotics. Please provide a quotation which claims that edusemiotics is part of biosemiotics. Vague "connection" is not enough. And I don't 'hate' this topic, but it doesn't change the fact that wikipedia relies on reliable sources (pardon the tautology), not just on any sources. I don't hate Tarot cards, but it is already well-established that anybody who discusses Tarot cards pretending of doing real science is not a reliable source in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * P.S. the author of the review you mentioned writes texts like "learning is the Universe’s way of discovering itself through life forms, " in his Ph.D., which makes me wonder about his sanity, not only to be a reliable source for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:27, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. The description of biosemiotics as " The field, which challenges normative views of biology, " is a prime red flag for pseudoscience, and promise I will not hate this article either, but take a good look for obfuscation. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:24, 20 October 2016 (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.