Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infodynamics


 * 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. Consensus is that this is still too much of a neologism for Wikipedia. JohnCD (talk) 18:34, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Infodynamics

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Neologism, apparently almost unused by anyone but Mansuri & Ceruti.  DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Google searching shows up more like a marketing buzzword than a real area of study. Shadowjams (talk) 03:25, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete and salt for reasons above, and repeated recreating of this article by the same editor despite multiple explanations on his talk page. Should also consider a speedy delete under G12 as a copyvio from . Singularity42 (talk) 14:35, 4 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  — Frankie (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment Additional references were added, and I was asked whether they were sufficient. I do not think they are--almost all of them--as well as the added content -- are perfectly general to information theory or information science.  DGG ( talk ) 22:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment I have removed a section that was added today for being original research (what the etymology of this specific neologism is) and a copy/paste of other Wikipedia content without attribution (the etymology of "information" and "dynamic"). Singularity42 (talk) 04:29, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment This is a simple term. There is even a department of infodynamics at Rice University. It is a new term of which Wikipedia should be open to. There are plenty of references listed compared numerious wiki articles that do not have any references at all. Despite the above comments, I do not see technical arguements against the term, I'm just hoping people here act out of intelligence rather than emotion. Think about it, it is a very simple term that is being used more frequently.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raysonik (talk • contribs) 18:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Did you mean for the comment above to be a keep !vote? Singularity42 (talk) 03:34, 11 February 2012 (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.