Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics


 * 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. Sandstein 11:20, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Closer's rationale:

This case is principally about whether "Socionomics" is – currently – a sufficiently notable scientific concept (or term) to be included in Wikipedia. As this issue has been discussed here in great detail and with extensive references to policies and guidelines, and as this is not a matter of applying core policies that override any possible consensus, the numerical consensus is determinative. With eight to four editors in favour of deletion, the consensus to delete is also clear. I'm discounting the opinion of the account with seven edits, but not that of User:Rgfolsom even though he is apparently in a conflict of interest here.

The content is available on request for mergers, subject to consensus of editors at the target article. I don't think this deletion will prove to be an impediment to the current ArbCom case, as all arbitrators are admins and will be able to access (or make accessible if required) the deleted history.

Socionomics

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Vanicruftspam of a somewhat "cloaked" sort. The article is correct in stating that "socionomics" is a term coined by the (barely notable) crank stockmarket "analyist" Robert Prechter. What may mislead discussion here is that Prechter has been pretty assiduous in inventing apparently independent attention to the idea.


 * 1) New Scientist is cited as a source for comment on Prechter's coinage, but that article is actually not on "socionomics" but rather the kooky (but possibly notable) Elliott wave principle which Prechter seems to be piggybacking on.
 * 2) The next independent source cited for mention of "socionomics" only mentions the book in the bibliography and nowhere uses the term in the text (i.e., the article's claim that the article "describes [socionomics] in detail" is false.
 * 3) As with all good vanikookery, "socionomics" has a website/foundation (founded, of course, by Prechter) where "papers" are posted -- there aren't that many (looks like six total?), and the journal is not peer-reviewed. (There is also a different "Tuscon Center", described as an "an internet educational organization" that carries five additional PDFs generously described as "papers".
 * 4) There is the claim that American Political Science Association has somehow endorsed the theory of socionomics -- this is false. Actually, it appears only that Prechter (along with dozens of others) contributed an unspecified question to a "pilot survey" (and it wasn't the APSA, it was the American National Election Studies project.)
 * 5) Once you get beyond these very specious claims -- which in the end amount to (generously) two or three peer reviewed papers (the Journal of Behavioral Finance published one paper by Precheter, and let's be generous and say he has two more somewhere in the wings) in a field that produces thousands on thousands of such papers a year -- there's not much left to say about the theory. The rather nonsensical material detailing the nature of "socionomics" is unsourced.
 * 6) An apparent claim to notability comes in the "criticism" section where it appears independent researchers have considered it significant enough to criticize. Not the case -- the two quotes that might be said to be directed at socionomics come from a documentary comissioned by the foundation itsef (i.e., the two independent scientists didn't write a paper or anything -- just said a few words for the camera.) A paper supposedly directed against socionomics actually debunks the Elliott wave principle.

So, OK, there you have it. I don't have a beef with socionomics the theory (personally consider it just another crank theory.) The question is whether or not it is a notable crank theory like Time Cube or possibly the Elliott wave principle. I believe the points above demonstrate that the apparent institutional and independent attention socionomics receives is fictional and the actual impact comes down to one or two personal websites and possibly one or two peer reviewed papers -- neither of which are sufficient criteria for notability.

Crucially, "IMO" and "YMMV". This deletion debate is in part a debate we're having all over the wiki about the criteria for notability. More discussion and justification can be found at WP:SCI. Thanks for reading, Sdedeo (tips) 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC) Sdedeo (tips) 20:54, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion has been added as a test case to the proposed guideline Notability (science). –Sdedeo (tips) 20:59, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete -- It definitely looks like it may be bordering on a WP:VANITY article posted by Robert Folsom, a supporter (no less an employee!) of Prechter with a definite conflict of interest. The nomination seems to cover the relevant points for why deletion is justified, but more than this it looks like the work of Prechter supporters to further promote and advocate for their ideas. Not a good omen in the least. --ScienceApologist 22:33, 27 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep
 * First, user:Sdedeo resorts to extremely uncivil language and ad hominem arguments in calling for this article deletion: "crank" "Vanicruftspam" and "kooky" do not suggest a responsible, good faith effort to evaluate the notability of an article in Wikipedia, but instead an editor on a search and destroy mission looking to "give it a shot" in a debate "we're having all over the wiki."


 * That said, socionomics is notable under WP:SCI -- a proposed guideline -- and meets several of the criteria it sets out.


 * Under notability, scientific community:


 * 1. General or specialized textbooks with non-trivial mention of socionomics.
 * Behavioral Trading, p. 26.
 * Technical Analysis Plain and Simple, pp. 127-128.
 * Evidence-Based Technical Analysis, p. 151.
 * The New Laws of the Stock Market Jungle p. 269.
 * The Irwin Guide to Using the Wall Street Journal, p. 354.
 * 2. Papers covering socionomics.
 * Kenneth R. Olson, A Literature Review of Social Mood, Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 7, No. 4: pages 193-203, 2006. Abstract here.
 * John Nofsinger, Social Mood and Financial Economics, Journal of Behavioral Finance, Vol. 6, no. 3, pages 144-160, 2005. Abstract here, PDF document here.
 * Robert R. Prechter Jr., Unconscious Herding Behavior as the Psychological Basis of Financial Market Trends and Patterns, The Journal of Psychology and Financial Markets, Vol. 2, No. 3: pages 120-125, 2001. Abstract here, PDF document here.
 * 3. Institutional support of socionomics:
 * American National Election Studies Association, a collaboration of Stanford and the University of Michigan, selected the Socionomics Foundation's proposed questions regarding social mood for inclusion in a study funded by the National Science Foundation. The social mood proposal was one of thirty proposals chosen from 1,100 submissions; universities other selectees are from include Columbia, Princeton, Harvard Law School, Brown, NYU, UC Berkley, MIT. The Socionomics Foundation was the one non-university selected.
 * Conference papers:
 * The Socionomic Theory of Finance and the Institution of Social Mood:, Wayne D. Parker & Robert R Prechter Jr., presented at the meeting of the Association for Heterodox Economics, London, England, July 14-16, 2006.
 * Methodological Individualism vs. Methodological Holism: Neoclassicism, Institutionalism and Socionomic Theory, Wayne D. Parker, presented at the joint annual congress of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology (IAREP) and the Society for the Advancement of Behavioral Economics (SABE), Paris, France, July 5-8, 2006.


 * Under Notability, culture at large


 * 1. Prominent advocacy of socionomics.


 * Robert Prechter


 * 2. Press coverage of socionomics.
 * "I Know What You'll Do Next Summer," New Scientist, 31 August 2002, p. 32.
 * "Storm Warning! How Social Mood Drives Markets," Futures magazine (cover), Nov. 2004.
 * "Social Mood and the Markets," Technical Analysis of Stocks & Commodities, June 2003, p. 50.
 * "Trader's Hall of Fame Award - Robert Prechter," Stocks, Futures & Options Magazine, July 2003, p. 42.


 * Under Other sources:


 * Conference proceedings --
 * John Casti: "Why the Future Happens: Socionomics and the Science of Surprise"


 * Search engine --
 * A Google search for "socionomics" brings more than 26,700 results -- and those exclude results from elliottwave.com, socionomics.net, and socionomics.org. Around 2,300 of the Google search results are non-English language, thus socionomics has some international notability.


 * The evidence above makes it obvious that socionomics is being studied, written about, and discussed independently of Robert Prechter.


 * The Journal of Behavioral Finance is indeed peer reviewed, and has published respected economists such as Robert Shiller. The quotation from John Nofsinger in the Socionomics article plainly does describe how socionomics works, by detailing how mood drives the business cycle -- that's why he included Prechter's book in the bibliography.


 * John Casti is an often-quoted author on complex systems; click around at the link for the conference mentioned above and you'll see that Harvard is one of the two sponsors. His article in Science does discuss socionomics in detail, and I'll be glad to post fair-use excerpts here if anyone cares to read it.


 * Finally, the COI issue has already come up here about me. This immediately prejudices opinions of the evidence I've presented, which is why the COI guideline says, "it may be easy to make claims about conflict of interest. Don't do it. The existence of conflicts of interest does not mean that assume good faith is forgotten. Quite the opposite. Remember the basic rule: discuss the article, not the editor." I'm willing to discuss the article with anyone else who is.
 * --Rgfolsom 00:08, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to Rgfolsom -- who is, it should be noted, a paid member of the "Socionomics Institute". I took a quick look at the new sources provided -- many of which I've already dealt with (this response is cut&paste from an RfA he's involved in.) For example, the New Scientist article he suggests covers Socionomics does not, actually do so (it is focused on Elliott Wave Theory and not Prechter's new coinage. The "institutional support" he claims is nothing of the sort, as I already explained. He does well in referencing all of the six self-published papers on socionomics.org, none of which I believe establish notability. I took a look at a few of the new references he sprinkled in --, for example, simply has a bibliographic mention of a book with the word "socionomics" in the title and the word "socionomics" appears nowhere else, and I have to say that doesn't inspire confidence that it's mentioned "non-trivially" in any of the other books he's found. For example, this book doesn't mention the word socionomics in the abstract, which strongly suggests it's not treated in any detail in the book itself. Nothing, in other words, in this slim list, seems to establish that socionomics is anything that vaugely meets WP:SCI (which I encourage Rgfolsom to actually read, as it explicitly says that having one or two peer reviewed papers is no where near a sufficient criterion.) Having a guy who said the word socionomics in a conference somehow related to Harvard University doesn't cut it. Sdedeo (tips) 03:57, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Response to Sdedeo -- Interested parties please note: After my call for editors to respect Wikipedia's policy to "discuss the article, not the editor," user:Sdedeo's very first remark was to discuss me, not the article. This is more ad hominem argument, i.e. one of the best-known of the logical fallacies usually enumerated in introductory logic and critical thinking textbooks. Curious indeed in a discussion about standards and science.


 * Sdedeo has also twice disputed my claim about John Casti's article in Science magazine. But, I say again: the (~2300 word) article does cover socionomics in detail; this time I invite other editors to decide for themselves. I posted the relevant quotations from the article (~600 words) on the talk page.


 * As for the inferences about the books I cited, I politely suggest that quotes are more informative than speculation. I posted the relevant quotations from those books on the talk page. Again, editors can decide for themselves if the mentions of socionomics are "trivial."


 * And, yes, I did use some of the same evidence here that I've offered in my RfA. In that dispute I face similarly uninformed, ad hominem arguments -- nostalgia from the 1970s about how the efficient market hypothesis is the academic orthodoxy. Back then it was safe to call technical analysis "astrology" (sort of like non-mainstream ideas today are labeled a "crank theory" for "kooks"). But things change. A generation later we've seen traders use technical analysis and become billionaires, not to mention academics who reject the EMH become Nobel Laureates. Things do change.
 * --Rgfolsom 08:32, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Pointing out conflicts of interest is perfectly within any editor's purview, as is pointing out that an opining editor has made few other edits outside the subject matter. ~ trialsanderrors 22:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and merge with Robert Prechter or Elliott wave principle. I don't see any evidence that this idea has (yet) attracted sufficient attention in the academic or financial community, or the wider culture, to warrant an article on its own.  Also, the article probably fails WP:NEO.  Semperf 16:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete (See below) The claim to notability in the article is that the term describes a new science: "The resulting breakthrough is so profound that it requires a new name for the science it makes possible." Exceptional claims such as this require exceptional evidence1, and the evidence offered so far has been extremely meager. Standard tests do not establish that the scientific community agrees about the "breakthrough", nor even much cares. Prechter's book gets zero cites on ISI, his various works on Elliott wave principle maybe a total of 5 (J Behav Fin: 2 cites). The term Socionomics has not been added to any classification systems in Economics2, Sociology3, or the social sciences at large.4. The 8 hits for socionomics on JSTOR all precede Prechter's supposed invention of the term.5 Behavioral finance is a fertile research field, with Prof. Robert Shiller (of Irrational Exuberance fame) a potential future Nobelist. But this article is long on claims and short on evidence, and fails the scientific terms test of WP:SCI, derived directly from WP:NPOV. ~ trialsanderrors 19:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep -- The relevant issue for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether or not an article meets established policy as described here: WP:DEL. The argument over scientific notability is in fact an argument about whether this topic satisfies a proposed guideline. Such a debate is interesting, but abstract. --MarkA12 20:39, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Note to closing admin. This is User:MarkA12's 7th edit.  Semperf 20:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This AfD is "out of process"
 * 1) User:sdedeo (et. al.) applied the WP:SCI notability standard in this AfD, which, at present, is a proposed guideline, and is not mentioned in Wikipedia's deletion policy.
 * 2) User:sdedeo made no attempt to follow the steps spelled out in WP:AFD, such as first adding a cleanup tag or sharing reservations about the article on its talk page.
 * 3) Deletion policy states, "XfD (deletion) processes are not a way to complain or remove material that is personally disliked" -- user:sdedeo declared, "[I] personally consider it just another crank theory," and thus plainly abused the deletion process.
 * 4) User:sdedo also breached AfD etiquette ("Do not make derogatory comments about living people") with the comment "crank stockmarket 'analyist' [sic] Robert Prechter," plus similarly uncivil and insulting remarks.
 * 5) Prima fascie evidence of a pre-existing point of view and potential bad faith.
 * All "delete" votes thus far come from a small group of editors who post to the WP:SCI talk page. They've been hunting for a "test case" for deletion, and, complete with mocking and put-downs of socionomics as a topic, this group contemplated a "test" on the socionomics article. The editor who nominated socionomics for the AfD said this to the group: "All right, I gave it a shot: see here Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Socionomics." This scheme violates the spirit (if not the letter) of AfD etiquette that forbids votestacking.
 * Three editors from the "delete" group have focused negative attention on the editors who voted to "keep," undermining them via accusations of vanity editing, conflict of interest, single-purpose editing, and even noting the number of edits to Wikipedia. This violates Wikipedia's guideline regarding harassment.
 * The facts offered here and in the socionomics article are verifiable, presented neutrally, and not originally researched. The editors who voted to "delete" mischaracterized or ignored this evidence, and imposed after-the-fact objections that are irrelevant and frivolous -- such as the absence of socionomics in JSTOR, and how the word "socionomics" violates WP:NEO. This is not consistent with the attitude called for in Wikipedia's deletion policy, namely that "the purpose of a discussion is to bring out a 'sense of the community' and the valid points for or against each view."


 * I changed my vote to speedy keep.
 * --Rgfolsom 02:10, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rg, you and I have made our points -- let's let other people chime in now. Sdedeo (tips) 02:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ha. I'd say the "crank" was maybe out of line, as about the rest, having a prior opinion on a topic does not amount to bad faith unless you're closing the discussion. Also, it's pretty clear from the WT:SCI that that was the first time we noticed the topic and clearly, being atuned to science discussions around here we're usually able to recognize a duck when it walks and quacks like one. That doesn't mean the sources shouldn't get due attention and a certain effort should be put into determining the reach of the new term. A proposed guideline simply means editors can invoke it, as long as it is based on policies, but it is not binding. And btw, WP:CSK certainly doesn't apply. ~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Trialsanderrors (talk • contribs) 04:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete -- Under the WP:SCI guideline this seems about the only way to do it. I've given my views on how socionomics is a non-science many times before.  I'm not sure of the etiquette, but the deletion should probably wait until the RfA is done (another week?).


 * I am not, in general, a deletionist - if there were a way that this article could be included and the reader alerted that this is an entirely new, untested, and perhaps untestable theory that does not come out of the scientific or academic world, I would not vote for delete. But given that the academic world ignores socionomics, then how can it be shown that it is non-scientific?  If we leave it in, readers will be misled.


 * BTW, the "textbooks" given above are not the type of textbooks written by academics and used in classes. There is an adjunct professor as one author.  "Books" is probably a better term.
 * Smallbones 14:23, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep I support a keep resolution for a couple of reasons. First, it seems that the Notability (science) and the WP:SCI projects need to first work together to see if they can get their two sets of 'proposed guidelines' to work in synch.  However, as neither guideline is (yet) a Wikipedia policy, it seems premature to utilize proposals as a basis for article deletion as I perceive Sedeo's basic argument.  Also, as a grad student in economics, I have touched some of this material in standard academic literature searches.  Before my research into social economics took me a different direction, I had even checked out and scanned Prechter's two book titles on Socionomics from the university library.  There are many items of social science and social philosophy covered in Wikipedia that have a much smaller basis than does Socionomics.
 * Perhaps most importantly, I think we would do well to heed Thomas Kuhn in his book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions." He shifted his own career from Physics to that of studying the History of Science.  He noted "...problems about the differences between [communities of social scientists] and those of the natural scientists among whom I had been trained.  ...I was struck by the number and extent of the overt disagreements between social scientists about the nature of legitimate scientific problems and methods."  [he doubts the natural science practitioners are firmly out of these woods] "Yet somehow, the practice of astronomy, physics, chemistry, or bilogoy normally fails to evoke the controversies over fundamentals that today often seem endemic among, say, psychologists or sociologoists" (pp. x)  Since 'Scientific revolutions', or paradigm-shifts, emerge gradually out of scientific work that was not, in general, intending to produce them (Kuhn, 62), I think it is best if an online open encyclopedia like Wikipedia set a reasonable, but not excessively high, bar for topic inclusion.  This is especially important in any of the relatively 'fuzzy' fields of the social sciences.  I believe Socionomcis meets that reasonable bar.  I further believe it would be a mistake to have a group of well-intentioned Wikipedians from a new project use a draft proposed guideline to eliminate articles using that early draft guideline.
 * Full disclosure: I have edited the Socionomics article on occasion in the past. N2e 19:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Notability (science) and WP:SCI have long been merged. On proposed guidelines, see my comment above. Proposed guidelines become active guidelines if there is consensus in application. So the idea that a proposed guideline cannot be used in discussions is false and in fact counterproductive. Proposed only means they are not actionable and reasoning has to be consistent with existing policy and active guidelines. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. On the question of Kuhn and paradigm-shifts, remember WP:NOT.  There are 100,000 ideas out there that are below the surface, 99,999 are crack-pot and one (maybe) will be a paradigm shift.  Wikipedia policy is to write the article after the theory has become notable, not before.  Semperf 20:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I requested admin review of this AfD because of the pending ArbCom case. The case should probably have been pointed out in the nomination. ~ trialsanderrors 23:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Can you tell us what that means T&E? Should we stop talking here and also tell other editors not to vote or comment? Sdedeo (tips) 23:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know since I usually don't deal with ArbCom cases and don't know what the exact procedure is. But I can see that ArbCom doesn't want the article deleted during their deliberations. So it might be procedurally closed until the ArbCom findings are out, but I asked other admins' input on it. ~ trialsanderrors 00:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like there is no policy about it, so I guess this can proceed. ~ trialsanderrors 05:37, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete since we already have an article on the Elliott wave principle and we have prior ArbCom resolutions which support resisting the use of Wikipedia to promote fringe theories. Guy (Help!) 09:56, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Commment: The first point is an argument to avoid: "The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from creating any article." The second point is uninformed regarding recent Arbcom rulings: "Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience."--Rgfolsom 14:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's actually a direct allusion to WP:NPOV, which is policy, and which states that If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not. I would argue that the ancillary article might be the yet-to be created Socionomics: The Science of History and Social Prediction. The threshold for books is lower than for neologisms. Usually the only requirement for books by notable authors is that they were critically reviewed by reliable reviewers. ~ trialsanderrors 19:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I accept your point as argued in good faith, yet in good faith I tell you that I keep feeling like I'm trying to hit a moving target. I just re-read "Undue weight," and I believe the spirit and letter of that text does allow a socionomics article, albeit shorter than it is now (a proposition I actually agree with). So, if someone had gone to the socionomics talk page and said, "Needs lots of attention," I would have agreed in a New York minute. But now I'm arguing a death penalty case. The punishment is absurdly disproportionate to the article's crimes. I understand and appreciate that your suggestion offers a post-delete solution, but the truth is that this RfD was overkill. Socionomics could have been handled in a dozen less ham-fisted ways.
 * --Rgfolsom 21:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep. Given the arguments and evidence, I can't see a good reason to delete this. --badlydrawnjeff talk 22:01, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. Given the weak arguments and lack of real evidence, I can't see a good reason to keep this promotional piece. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Everything about this seems like a neologism, and not a particularly widely-accepted or used one. The citations seem like they all involve the author trying to promote the term, not actual reliable sources independently reporting or using it.  I think the nominator's discussion of the citations is particularly informative; one of the article's writers responded ably, but failed to rebut the nominator's points.  Therefore I agree with the nominator, and would delete it. --TheOtherBob 00:58, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep article makes explicit claims of notability and provides ample reliable sources to back up its claim. Use of the malicious "Vanicruftspam" nonsense and derisive references to the coiner only serve as further evidence of a potentially bad faith nomination. Alansohn 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Please assume that this is a good faith nomination.--TheOtherBob 15:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: I submit that the "evidence to the contrary" clause in WP:AGF deserves to be raised. This nomination began with multiple instances of abusive and uncivil language, including an insult to a living person, which WP:AFD expressly forbids. I have twice been personally identified by name. Editors here have implied that my sources are phony, notwithstanding the slam-dunk evidence of their validity. Editors who are offended by offensive behavior should speak up, especially when "evidence to the contrary" is as obvious as this.
 * --Rgfolsom 17:26, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The "evidence to the contrary" clause is not an exception that devours the rule -- you must assume good faith unless the evidence is clearly to the contrary. Examples of times when evidence is clearly to the contrary include "vandalism, confirmed malicious sockpuppetry, and lying."  None apply here.
 * I don't think WP:AFD addresses insults to a living person; you probably mean WP:BLP (though it also doesn't say that). In any event, that guideline does not require that anyone who comes along with a conflict of interest not feel "insulted."  I assume you are Mr. Prechter, since you say you've been identified by name?  As such, you have a pretty large conflict of interest.  If you don't want to see your theory critiqued and your sources analyzed (and potentially found to be phony or invalid), then you should not participate here.  That's the gist of WP:COI - if the article is about you, and you therefore cannot separate criticism of the article from criticism of you as a human being, then you're too conflicted and should step away.  It is in no way bad faith to question, challenge, or analyze a subject, and you should not assume that such questioning is anything other than a good faith desire to build the encyclopedia.
 * By the way, so as not to distract from the AfD, if you have further comments regarding the conduct of the participants, may I suggest that you take them to the talk page instead? Thanks.--TheOtherBob 18:21, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not Robert Prechter. Please read note my handle and read the rest of the page more carefully. As for the relevant issue: if you believe name-calling (a kook with a crank theory) exhibits "a good faith desire to build an encyclopedia," please say so plainly. Thanks,
 * --Rgfolsom 18:38, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, you are Robert Folsom, an employee of a related institute rather than the author himself - my apologies for not noticing that previously. In any event, the COI problems remain, as does the failure to assume good faith.  Do I think referring to the subject of an article as a "kook with a crank theory" exhibits a good faith desire to build an encyclopedia?  Yes.  It's not particularly civil, but it is good faith.  This is a request to delete the article; that the article is about a "crank theory" put forth by a "kook" (in whatever more civil terms we could say that) makes it more likely that it should be deleted.
 * Now, should he have said that in a less confrontational way? Sure.  The nominator perhaps violated WP:Civil (though I'd argue that you took it more personally than you should, because of your conflict).  You've since violated WP:AGF.  I think you're better off seeking relief in the form of an apology of some sort from the nominator - none of this has anything to do with whether the article should be kept or deleted.  Thanks.--TheOtherBob 20:27, 31 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment Keep if rewritten and independent, non-trivial reviews provided, delete otherwise I think this case is at risk of spiralling out of control and personal issues might override factual issues. As I expressed it earlier, I believe Socionomics as a scientific neologism is still too feeble to be covered in Wikipedia, but the book might very well be notable from the sources provided (I'll leave the proof to the editors). On the issue of science or pseudoscience, it's business research, so the rigorous standards of the hard sciences don't apply. So I would recommend as a peace offer that is hopefully acceptable to all that this article be rewritten to be about the 1999 book on Socionomics. Books by notable authors have low thresholds of inclusion, and the listings above strike me as sufficient to meet them. This way the issue of science or not? will also go away, and rgfolsom's awkward role as COI editor might be alleviated. I recommend that the article on the book stay in line with its relevance within the fields, which is very small in academic circles but at least moderate in practitioner's circles. What ultimately has to be remived is the impression that Wikipedia is used to further corporate goals. A neutral article can achieve that, an article with exagerrated claims about importance will probably not find favor with the editors. ~ trialsanderrors 02:08, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Have to disagree here -- the 1999 book is published by "New Classics Library, a division of market forecasting firm Elliott Wave International ... an independent publishing company owned by Robert Prechter." i.e., it's a vanity press when it comes to Prechter, and the bar for independent articles on a vanity press book is I believe set quite high. Do we, for example, have multiple independent reviews of the book? If not, really can't do much with the article except post the blurb, which is the problem with the subject as a whole. Sdedeo (tips) 05:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Amended. This might be my longest bolded opinion ever. ~ trialsanderrors 06:13, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm very grateful for your good-faith effort to find a compromise, TE. I stepped back and took the time to review the record again; I respectfully say that it remains clear to me that socionomics does satisfy the relevant policies (WP:V, WP:NPOV, WP:NOR), and does not warrant deletion under a reasonable reading of WP:DEL. I also believe that it satisfies the proposed higher criteria in WP:SCI, even though (as you noted) that criteria is not binding.
 * I am willing to make and respect any reasonable edits that you or any editor deems necessary to keep socionomics as such in this encyclopedia. I want to be part of and accountable to the Wikipedia community.
 * For the record, please know that I have not made and do not want to make any edits that put "corporate goals" above the interests of Wikipedia. Instead, my hope is that if a person come across socionomics in an investment book, or in The New Scientist magazine, or in one of thousands of places on the internet, they can also turn to this encyclopedia and read an informative entry on the topic.
 * --Rgfolsom 00:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Let’s all step back. I’d like to respectfully suggest that we all step back and review the record again, dispassionately. As trialsanderrors notes, the personal issues are threatening to overwhelm the facts. If anyone who originally voted in favor of deletion still believes that his vote is appropriate in light of all the evidence that has come forth, that is of course his prerogative. But now that the evidence is on the table, my guess is that some who initially voted "delete" will see that the policy issues regarding this article have indeed all been answered. Or, at the least, that no compelling evidence demands indictment. In such a situation, I humbly submit that reconsidering an earlier vote is an honorable thing to do.--MarkA12 01:49, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * As for me, the evidence was pretty underwhelming, so no. You might want to contact the other editors though to see if they changed their opinion. ~ trialsanderrors 03:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I must say no as well. Someone's comment on my talk page notwithstanding, I gave this a full review the first time around.  Sorry, but I don't see what you're talking about when you say that evidence has come forth - I see nothing new.--TheOtherBob 13:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, am comfortable with my original point and do not see a reason to change it. Whether or not the closing admin can determine a consensus here is up to him/her.  Semperf 15:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete With all apologies to the closing admin, I was asked to clarify my position above since my bolded opinion reads like a line from a James Joyce book, so here we go: The argument that rgfolsom and others have brought enough evidence that the term meets our basic standards for neologism is underwhelming. For a comparison of cases that were discussed under WP:NEO, see Special:Whatlinkshere/WP:NEO. As a quick scan will show, we delete the vast majority of them even though some have a pattern of infrequent use. In this case we have the advantage that we can be very certain that all positive evidence of its use has been offered, so we don't have to speculate whether there are hidden sources and we might make a wrong call just because we can't access them. The evidence is extremely underwhelming. The book with the core claim to notability has been released eight years ago, and even if we take the provided evidence at face value we get about one mention per year of the term Socionomics. That is less than the number of mentions the term received before Prechter coined it (usually to denote some hybrid of sociology and economics, but completely unrealted to Finance). So the claim that the term is used by at least a "significant minority", as required by WP:NPOV is unsupported by the evidence. Undue weight goes on to say that "[i]f a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article)", which seems to be the criterion here. So the question is always, is there an matching ancillary article where this information can be presented in accordance with the weight the term carries in the world? And the answer to this is clearly yes: the article Robert Prechter. The core guidelines were never meant to be interpreted in the way rgfolsom does above, or we were held to carry every "Bear Fell Out of Tree in Santa Cruz" story that makes the local news on a Tuesday evening. Does this restate my opinion above? Not really, I think an article on the book might be possible, but the evidence of independent reviews still has to be brought (the mentions above I could check turned out to be mentions in passing or authors with connections to the Socionomics Institute). If the book, like the term has not proven enough heft in the world of academic finance or Wall Street, the book as well as the term should be mentioned in the Prechter article. This article here grossly overstates is significance and therefore fails WP:NPOV. None of this takes into account whether the theory has any scientifc merit or not, as it is immaterial to this debate. ~ trialsanderrors 17:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment:
 * First, WP:NEO is a guideline, not policy.
 * Second, WP:NEO says:
 * "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term -- not books and papers that use the term… Neologisms that are in wide use -- but for which there are no treatments in secondary sources -- are not yet ready for use and coverage in Wikipedia."
 * I have provided multiple secondary sources that go beyond mere "use" of the term -- five books from reputable publishers, two academic journal articles, four trade press magazine articles, an article from a reputable academic in a reputable science magazine, conference papers, a conference proceeding co-sponsored by a prominent university -- each one is either about or includes a non-trivial treatment of socionomics. A term that receives 25,000+ results from a Google search cannot plausibly be described as in use only "by an extremely small minority." Please show me an article that was deleted because of WP:NEO that had anything remotely resembling the evidence for notability that socionomics offers.
 * Third, you quote from NPOV undue weight -- yet that essay also emphasizes this: "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. Wikipedia is not paper." I respectfully but candidly say that your admirable attempts to compromise -- and your "maybe it does, maybe it doesn't" comments regarding notability -- show a degree of doubt. So I trust you won't hold it against me for repeating this sentence from the guidelines to administrators: When in doubt, don't delete.
 * --Rgfolsom 18:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not making an argument based on WP:NEO, I'm making an argument based on WP:NPOV, which is policy. The pointer towards cases that reference WP:NEO is just a quick way to access discussions on similar topics. On doubts, I have none. I'm sorry, I've seen many, many failed attempts by academics to establish neologisms, and this one falls at the low end of the spectrum. One mention per year is not "use". It's wholesome rejection by a community that creates massive amounts of accessible literature, both academic and applied. ~ trialsanderrors 21:10, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No doubt you find this back & forth as tedious as I do, so I too say I'm sorry. But your personal experiences in academia carry zero weight vs. the face value meaning of passages like this one:
 * The argument 'non-neutral point of view' (violates WP:NPOV) is often used, but often such articles can be salvaged, so this is not a very strong reason for deletion either.
 * And not to mention the Arbcom ruling I've already cited:
 * Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
 * As I've also said before, we can wrangle on and on over the letter in WP:Undue weight, but the spirit of that essay is actually generous and inclusive. The example given of a tiny minority view is not of the "tough call" variety, but instead universally recognized as preposterous -- the flat earth. In the larger spirit of NPOV, the spirit of that policy is to avoid bias. To use it as a rule to kill an article where the obvious meaning of "bias" isn't even an issue cries out for the common sense application of an even more important policy.
 * --Rgfolsom 05:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes I'm beginning to find it tedious. This is not a tough call. Eight mentions in eight years is not usage. It is not significant, and I'm far from convinced it's legitimate. There is nothing more to be said. ~ trialsanderrors 07:19, 3 February 2007 (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.