Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information habitat

Looks like nonsense to me. Dori | Talk 15:46, Apr 6, 2004 (UTC)
 * Please revisit information habitat to see a revision that provides what, imho, consitutes a self-evident demonstration of the profound transformation in typical home-based information habitats in the past decade during what can be understood as an evolutionary stable transition - from pigment- & paper / tree-based information habitats to light-based digital habitats - to a radically new general Nash equilibrium for economic activity.
 * It seems surprising that there has been so much negative response to the concept of information habitat given that Wikipedia is a prime example of the transformative properties of digital information habitats. Information Habitat 02:26, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Delete, along with information species, and whatever else there is along these lines. Fennec 17:09, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Oh, and self-referential. Fennec 17:11, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, admittedly self-referential, however, no other research appears to have recognized the significance of the phenomenon, and there has been strong and widespread interest in the concept and its application with the global UN community - among NGOs, UN staff, diplomats & IT professionals. The time has come to share the fruits of the research with the broader Internet community and the wiki platform is clearly an ideal medium for such a publication. Information Habitat 02:43, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. -- Friedo 17:31, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. -Seth Mahoney 18:25, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. Doesn't look like nonsense to me. JRR Trollkien 19:34, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Move the disputed User:Information Habitat pages from Wikipedia to either this Wikibooks project or to this meta-wiki location. JWSchmidt 13:29, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion is welcome, & will be followed with the development of a wikibook on information ecology, where much of the development can hopefully take place in a more hospitable environment. However, this does not change the question as to whether information habitat is not a core component of information ecology, and the fact that the transformation of information habitats in the past decade has been profound. Information Habitat 02:48, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Why? They aren't science or research.  They aren't really anything.  -Seth Mahoney 20:43, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * With all due respect, there is a strong scientific basis in the discipline of information ecology - e.g. in mathematics, economics, social science, library science & ecology, inter alia - and the development and application of the concept has taken place over more than a decade of extensive and successful applied research & development - principally in the use of ICTs by NGOs participating in United Nations conferences from the Earth Summit to Habitat II. A lengthy CV provides extensive details, and comprehensive documentation is available at www.information-ecology.net. Information Habitat 02:36, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Information ecology is presented as an emerging scientific discipline. There have been several books published on the topic. One of these states: "An information ecology is a system of people, practices, technologies and values in a local environment. Like their biological counterparts, information ecologies are diverse, continually evolving and complex."
 * Have you actually looked at the page? -Seth Mahoney 22:18, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Apologies for any shortomings in the definition - which hopefully has been somewhat remedied by the latest revision. Part of the difficulty is the extent to the research and conceptual framework that has been developed, combined with the learning process as to the development of Wikipedia definitions. Constructive revisions to the page - as happened with information ecology - would seem to be a more helpful & constructive Wikipedian response than deleting the entry. Information Habitat 02:50, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * User:Information-Habitat/Information ecology is marked as being on the vfd hit list. This seems to be a serious attempt to start a wiki-based resource for Information ecology.
 * That's odd - I didn't know we were in the habit of deleting User: pages. Anyhow, I'm not saying that there is no term "information habitat" that we could write an article about (though I've never heard one, though I'm not especially interested in the topic), but that this particular article is bad. Very, very bad. -Seth Mahoney 22:57, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Part of being nice to newcomers should involve sending them to the Wikimedia project that is most suited to them. I agree that User:Information-Habitat/Information ecology should be removed from Wikipedia. The power of wiki is that a bad page that should die will die, a bad page that can get better will get better if it is in the right environment. Not everyone can see the potential in a bad page, so there should be some tolerance towards bad pages that are outside of one's field of knowledge and interest. JWSchmidt 00:12, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: I think we've given this project a fair go. Support your efforts to find a home within Wikimedia but they look like failing to me. Andrewa 18:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Comment: It's not Information ecology that is proposed for deletion here. That article is coming along nicely. What is proposed for deletion here is a live experiment promoting this discipline in our article namespace, where it doesn't belong. Andrewa 18:34, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * However, information habitat & information species are core concepts in a language of information ecology, just as much as habitat & species are fundamental to a definition of ecology. Information Habitat 03:08, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. Do not move to other wiki projects; they don't need it any more than WP does. Wile E. Heresiarch 20:59, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete. See my comments at Template:VfD-Information species. Andrewa 18:18, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * I thought to myself, hey! maybe I'm being too hard on this article - after all, like I said before, its not in a field I'm interested in, so I looked over it again, even changed the formatting and a little language to make it seem less, uhm, travel brochure, I guess, but no. This is just not a good article.  First off, its jargony.  Very, very, very jargony.  Second, it makes claims that just aren't true, such as "information is becoming progressively free - free of the constraints of the laws of conservation of mass and energy." Now, maybe something can be made of it, but its still a long way away from being a good article. Still delete, unless it is edited a bunch.  -Seth Mahoney 19:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)