Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sousveillance

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was REDIRECT. I'm going to switch the two articles while I'm at it, so Inverse surveillance will redirect to Sousveillance. dbenbenn | talk 16:46, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sousveillance
Introduction of a neologism only attested in "hip speak", without any clear explanation of what it means. Personal research in sociology. Incomprehensible babble ("cyborglogs"). Advertisement of a certain NYC group. David.Monniaux 10:23, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * See previous nomination at Talk:Inverse surveillance.


 * Delete Rama 10:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Sousveillance scores a respectable 25K Google hits so perhaps it is not a neologism. I too consider that Stefanos Pantagis writes a lot of high-faluting drivel. Look what he wrote about creating his Equiveillance article Equiveillance is my first wikipedia submission. Had fun writting it: the square paragraph system of linking words withing wikipedia creates all sorts of linguistic tension, and forces the article to sort of fit in and explain relative to the other definition, but is extraordinary very free at the same time. (this blog link may change quickly). -- RWH 11:57, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * I also suggest a look at the edit history comments of Equiveillance and the first paragraph of the 10:18, 2005-02-14 revision of that article. Uncle G 12:45, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
 * Keep. The two main reasons to keep are (1) sousveillance already survived a vfd in the past.  Since then, it has grown substantially in common usage, and in many of the newspapers and magazines it no longer appears in quotes, or with definition or explanation.  For example, I got a call from the Life Magazine fact checker, who wanted to learn more about this, and she thought it was an old French word (i.e. didn't realize it was newly coined) since it has been in such widespread use.  (2) A large number of publications, printed materials, articles, etc., make reference to http://wikipedia.org/Sousveillance and thus deletion of this entry would create a loss in faith of the permanence of Wikipedia entries, and the ability to make scientific or scholarly references into Wikipedia. Glogger 17:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Neutral for now. Please provide a Wiki link which shows record of this article surviving a prior votes for deletion.  I would like to review it.  GRider\talk 18:53, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to inverse surveillance. It seems likely that this concept will get some air as the assumption of "public privacy" is eroded by the increasing ubiquity of security cameras, etc. Therefore I think that the more NPOV and non-neologistic article might subsume this article. All in my humble opinion, of course. HyperZonk 17:36, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, no merge. Wyss 17:57, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, no merge. Wile E. Heresiarch 18:59, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Redirect, to inverse surveillance. Megan1967 01:04, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * Partial merge and redirect. Dumb but popular neologism.  -Sean Curtin 02:52, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * "Sousveillance" was previously nominated for deletion in April 2004. See Talk:Inverse surveillance.  The decision then was keep.  The article was later moved to "Inverse surveillance".  I don't particularly care which title gets the article but one of them should redirect to the other.  The fork is inappropriate.  Rossami (talk) 04:57, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * "Sousveillance" was renamed after it survived the VfD in 2004. I don't think the re-naming was a good thing because (1) sousveillance is a broader concept than inverse surveillance (sousveillance is a proper superset of inverse surveillance); (2) sousveillance is in far wider usage than inverse surveillance e.g. 27,000 Google hits as compared with approx. 800, and an even higher ratio in the published literature.  Disclaimer: I also coined the term "inverse surveillance" so I'm equally partial/non-impartial to both of these terms. Glogger 13:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm gonna have to go with merge and redirect to Inverse surveillance, which is a better article but still rather messy, and in need of some NPOVing. Inverse surveillance implies there's a difference between that and "sousveillance", but it isn't clear to me what the difference is. The sousveillance article is just a mess; when I read it I didn't have the remotest idea what it was talking about. --Angr 23:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I propose the following: (1) get rid of or the poorly written sousveillance article; (2) rename the "inverse surveillance" article to sousveillance; (3) make a re-direct from "inverse surveillance" that points to the sousveillance article. That way the article will be titled by sousveillance (the more widely used term than inverse surveillance) but will contain the better written of the two, and eliminate the redundancy of having two articles in which one describes a topic that is a subset of the other. Glogger 04:25, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * If it is decided to go with my suggestion of getting rid of Sousveillance and then renaming Inverse_surveillance to Sousveillance, perhaps we could pull in some parts of the deleted article to merge. Also, Inverse_surveillance, once renamed to Sousveillance, would hopefully then also retain the edit history and the original VfD result of "keep".  Some minor edits would be required because I (perhaps in bad judgement) edited the article once it was changed to "Inverse surveillance" in the past, in order to match that changed title, but on second thought, it seems like it had been a mistake to rename it to Inverse surveillance and it probably should have been left as Sousveillance, so as not to produce this fork between what is now two articles in which one is a proper superset of the other (making the other redundant to some degree).  Glogger 04:20, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.