Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sustainocene


 * 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   redirect to sustainable development. (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 03:39, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Sustainocene

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The entirety of the article just reads as a promotional work regarding the research of Bryan Furnass and Thomas Faunce on this neologism that only these people seem to use. In the only source where Faunce is not a major author, "Sustainocene" is used once. — Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I would also like to note that primary author is in fact Thomas Faunce, as evidenced by this photo he uploaded to the Commons in the past. So on top of everything, we have a major conflict of interest on this and several other articles.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:07, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * There is currently a ANI discussion about the scope of the article, see here. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Where do you think I found it? Being on ANI does not prevent this page from being deleted for being a massive puff piece on a word that the author made up in academia and is trying to use Wikipedia as a venue for further thought.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:10, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I see no reason why this article shouldn't be kept(without the current bias), or alternatively an article is required to cover the topic of "post carbon world". Prokaryotes (talk) 22:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * "Sustainocene" is a word made up by two researchers. If you can find a wider usage stemming from their coining of the term then it has some merit. Otherwise, we should have been rid of this and NimbusWeb's semi-transparent soapboxing for years.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:20, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read the header part of my ANI report, a quick way is to look up his paper and slide (linked over there). The name was coined by Brian Furnass, and Nocera/Faunce hijacked the term to promote their opinion how a sustainable world could be accomplished. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * All I've gathered is that Faunce (NimbusWeb) is using this page, and others to promote his idealogy and research on Wikipedia, so we could probably be without this neologism that no one uses.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete too soon I would love to read an article about the Sustainocene because I think it is a valuable concept. However, none of the references I could find to it were in reliable sources independent from the initiators of the concept. When it has been the subject of major magazine/journal articles, or as a subject in somebody else's book, then it could be added to Wikipedia. If those already exist, please post references to them so we can evaluate them. Thank you. SchreiberBike talk 22:30, 11 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No final opinion Though besides wasting a few hours in the afford to make the scope sound (For reference see my final edit here), i have no general opinion on a deletion of the page. However, my main interest is to have an article which covers the supposed "Post carbon world", eg. a sustainable world which adapts and mitigates in face of global warming and environmental destruction. In relation to the current Anthropocene, the name Sustainocene describes the notion of sustainability, it's a good name for this possible future epoch. Prokaryotes (talk) 22:48, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * You should really read up on our notability guidelines and policies rather than voice your personal opinions on the possible future merits of this term devoid of NimbusWeb/Faunce's distortion.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:02, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm confident that the topic meets notability guidelines, see the term at Google scholar has 480 entries] on "post carbon world" or this article Power Down: Options and Actions for a Post-Carbon World. Often different terms are used to outline a post carbon world, many reports assess adaptation options, such as the IPCC AR5 report or various UN reports on sustainability. A broad principle can be found at Sustainable development. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps "post-carbon world" is a notable term. "Sustainocene" is not.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 23:19, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, maybe i create that article later when i have enough data. Btw, thanks for your afford to help sort this out. Prokaryotes (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:50, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Re-direct to sustainable development. Schreiber bike described the situation pretty well. Orser67 (talk) 02:56, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That would be a good compromise. prokaryotes (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to sustainable development per Orser67. Beagel (talk) 15:55, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This isn't a valid search term to turn this into a redirect. No one uses "Sustainocene" other than the author of the article.— Ryūlóng ( 琉竜 ) 17:05, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, there are 11 Google Scholar cites, with the first paper by B. Furnass, who coined the term. There is at least 1 book on Amazon on the subject (dind't looked into the particular content). But the term got "hi-jacked" very early by the AP fuel guys (and the 1 project heavily promoted has been abandoned ), except for Faunce who still promotes his research. Further it appears that Furnass had a false impression about the technology and the motives of Faunce & Co., when responding to a question at the end of a podcast (link), and said that he knows nothing about artificial photosynthesis. prokaryotes (talk) 17:35, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Redirect to sustainable development; @Ryulong, your argument appears to be based on the reasonable concern in WP:NEOLOGISM that we shouldn't be used as a platform to foster the popularity of terms.  If the word had never appeared in the professional literature, I would probably agree with you.  But it did pass its review process and got published, so I don't see a big abuse-of-process problem using a redirect on the term. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Redirect Cancelled my Delete above. I see no problem with a redirect. SchreiberBike talk 23:17, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Retain I am posting this message on behalf of Bryan Furnass: "Dear Tom. I propose to mount a defence of continued inclusion, not deletion, of my neologism 'Sustainocene' in Wikipedia, but I cannot find a way to do so through the Wikipedia website. The first entry supporting deletion was that this was for self-promotion and the word not widespread in the scientific literature. But so was Nobel Laureate Paul Crutzen's unfamiliar neologism in 2000 for naming the present era the 'Anthropocene' as being more appropriate than the relatively stable 'Holocene' era (the change still being officially considered by the Geological Society in London). I do not agree with one of the suggestions in Wikipedia that sustainable development would be more suitable, since this implies the economic and population growth which are inimical to the proposed 'Sustainocene' era which has to do with the (improbable) survival of our own and many other species into the next century. Your artificial photosynthesis is entirely in keeping with James Hudson's declaration that we must move from a carbon economy to a photon economy and this is supported by Dan Nocera and yourself, for scientific, not self-promotional reasons. I think the word 'Sustainocne' should be made sustainable to alert all and sundry to the crisis we face. I'm virtually computer illiterate, so can you please show me what buttons to press to communicate with the Wikipedia entry decision-makers. Kindest regards to you all Bryan Furnass. Tom Faunce.
 * @Bryan, (A) You have falsely assumed that each-and-every theory of sustainable development necessarily includes ongoing economic and population growth. That's false and our article on the subject probably needs to explore that notion more than it does.  But already, the article talks of only using resources at no more than the rate of replenishment, which implies a steady (or falling) population and a steady-state economy.  (B) The neologism "anthropocene" was also challenged here until a significant number of diverse RSs were mentioning it.  Your word might fly on the wings of wikipedia.  Just not yet. We're here to report after you've convinced lots of others, not to recruit them for you. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:00, 18 April 2014 (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.