Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information crisis


 * 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. There are no reliable sources that would not require an original interpretation in order to be used to cite this article. King of &hearts;   &diams;   &clubs;  &spades; 17:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Information crisis

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Per WP:NEO. Apparently unsourced neologism for a theoretical type of communications disaster. Article itself says that the single real-world example - the Y2K problem - "in fact never occurred". Can't see any coherent usage of this term from searching sources; main usage seems to be the Tom Clancy novel that the original article creator used as a source. McGeddon (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. It seems that the "sources" found above generally refer to the "Foo information crisis", or "information crisis in foo", which refer to some crisis relating to information about "foo".  This may be a flaw in search methods, but it makes it difficult to believe that the term is used as specified, or, indeed, has any particular meaning.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 17:02, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, for that matter, that the concept has a well-defined name attached. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 21:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Amending my first list of hits, it also includes the strings "...Information, Crisis,...", "...information. Crisis...", and "information crisis managers" (in which both "information" and "crisis" seem to modify "managers").
 * Keep. It's a stub and needs to be filled-out. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:24, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * But can we find a single source that clearly supports "information crisis" as the most widely-used term for the type of event that would have included the millennium bug? We shouldn't keep a stub around if it was just put there by a Tom Clancy fan and can never be meaningfully expanded, even if we feel that it's the kind of thing that should have an umbrella term. --McGeddon (talk) 09:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. ...or fill out BEFORE linking to factual articles. The article is a speculation about a possibility, and the only sources are works of fiction. It refers to Y2K as a potential information crisis (then says it "didn't happen"), though Clancy's novel seems to be more about the "electronic Pearl Harbor" that many were talking about a few years back. If the article is filled out properly, it could be cited as a popular culture reference (NOT as a "see also" to a factual article), but my preference would be to see it deleted. Mr Barndoor (talk) 08:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep Just tag it with the needs ref tags. It's a true article, even if it does not have any references, and worth the keep. Res Mar 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The article has had a "This article does not cite any references or sources." banner since December 2009. --McGeddon (talk) 20:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete A search for sources shows various uses for the term in the IT world, but not in the way this article uses it. Without sources, it fails WP:GNG (""Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail"). First Light (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

The phrase turns up a lot of results on google scholar, however it takes on different meanings. An information crisis could be to much information. Does anyone know if "information crisis" is a phrase used in Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell? The Y2k part should definitely be reworded, but maybe he means that y2k didn't happen in terms of whatever his definition of "information crisis" is. Here's some links to different descriptions of "information crisis". This could definitely be a broad topic.

Preciseaccuracy (talk) 02:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=n2nIM0l1TQ0C&pg=PA3&dq=%22information+crisis%22&hl=en&ei=Dy5WTKbXFM3PngeU5t2cAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDEQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22information%20crisis%22&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=3PJTgyUIGk4C&pg=PA6&dq=%22information+crisis%22&hl=en&ei=Dy5WTKbXFM3PngeU5t2cAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22information%20crisis%22&f=false
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=XwkAAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA6&dq=%22information+crisis%22&hl=en&ei=Dy5WTKbXFM3PngeU5t2cAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=%22information%20crisis%22&f=false
 * Delete - it does not seem that this term is used in a consistent enough way for an article to be possible that would not fall foul of WP:SYNTH. JohnCD (talk) 10:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Call it original research, call it a neologism, call it sloppy writing with nothing behind it... The fact of the matter is, this is not a good topic for a Wikipedia article, in that the subject is not a generally recognized (and searched) term. There should be ample coverage on the specific event, the Y2K crisis, already. Carrite (talk) 16:39, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Sounds like what wp:NEO was written for. ErikHaugen (talk) 17:15, 9 August 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.