Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social information seeking


 * 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 keep. There is s clear consensus for keeping this. Whether it remains as a separate article or is merged elsewhere can be sicussed on the article's talk page. Michig (talk) 08:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Social information seeking

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article is nominated per WP:SPIP. It is created primarily to promote its creator work (WP:COI, WP:SPA). The topic is more widely known as social search Adblock2 (talk) 01:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

See also Sockpuppet_investigations/ShahChirag/Archive.

I am also nominating the following related page by the same author due to the same reasons:
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:GNG. Qworty (talk) 02:48, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep - bad nomination, WP:COI and behavior from editors are not reasons for deletion, since the article's creator doesn't own the article. No claim as to why the content could be non-neutral beyond redemption, so no reason to delete is given; behavioral guidelines don't uphold deletion of articles, content guidelines do. The Google Scholar link above returns an abundance of research papers from numerous independent researchers, so the WP:GNG is more than met. Diego (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * The edit you did in the nomination looks like a vandalism. I am reverting it. Even if you think the nomination is bad it doesn't justify your edit. Instead, it would be more helpful if you improve the article by adding some of the independent third party sources you found Adblock2 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know what you're talking about. But accusing someone of vandalism doesn't look like WP:AGF - please don't do it. Diego (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I refer to the first part of your edit : you modified social search in the nomination into s search making it a red link. This is unhelpful edit and does look like a typical vandalism to me. I will assume good faith if you say that was an accidental mistake on your part. Adblock2 (talk) 21:05, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * That should go without saying. If I had noted it, I would have corrected it myself. Diego (talk) 21:24, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep/merge Seems similar to social search and collaborative information seeking which are all notable topics. Warden (talk) 09:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * We both agree that social search is a notable topic. The question here is if the new names introduced and defined by the creator of this article satisfy WP:GNG. I see no evidence of this. The terms are not generally accepted beyond a small research group. If you know some evidence of their notability or wider use, please share. Why is it beneficial to have three articles covering the same topic under slightly different names? Adblock2 (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep As per Warden, but seems to be sub field of Collaborative information seeking. scope_creep  (talk) 00:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep A quick GScholar search shows over 270 hits for the term and multiple papers where this topic is a central part of the paper. The topic is notable. While there may be issues with neutrality and due weight in the article, correcting these is a matter of editing, not deletion. The topics social search and collaborative information seeking and Social information seeking all seem to have some overlap, but organizing or merging these topics can be done outside of AfD. A notable topic and surmountable article problems, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE suggest that this article be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 01:09, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Nominator's arguments are, at best, evidence for redirecting or merging; either we should keep this article or redirect it to social search. Moreover, authors are welcome to cite their own works if said works have been properly published in peer-reviewed contexts, and the only reason we would delete a page that's safe in this way is if it were so heavily self-promotional that it qualified for speedy deletion as promotional or for WP:TNT treatment; after looking over the article, I'm confident that it qualifies for neither of them.  Merging is a discussion that can be held separately; I have no opinion on it.  Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep, nice amount of secondary referencing including academic and scholarly sources. &mdash; Cirt (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I agree. Please consider this: 'search' and 'information seeking' are not the same. And 'social' and 'collaborative' are not the same. These words should not be used interchangeably, and so these topics should not be merged. Having said that, the article on social information seeking could use more material, preferably by different authors, along with more scholarly references. ShahChirag (talk) 20:49, 18 April 2013 (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.