Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliodynamics

: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. John254 00:09, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

=[[Cliodynamics]]=

:{{la|Cliodynamics}} ([{{fullurl:Cliodynamics|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cliodynamics}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

No evidence provided for notability for the subject, I question that it justifies an article separate from the existing ones on the authors in the bibliography. dougweller (talk) 12:39, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Comment Not my area of expertise, but it seems very similar to [http://www.eeb.uconn.edu/people/turchin/Clio.htm this article]. Plagarism, perhaps? I have no issues with the topic itself though, I believe the extensive coverage of the subject provides some evidence of notability. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 14:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Delete: Weak keep no third party sources and no indication that this is widely regarded as a discrete field of study. HrafnTalkStalk 12:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

:*The Nature piece is only an essay, and by the coiner of the term -- but if Nature deigns to at least acknowledge the existence of an idea, I suppose it's notable enough for inclusion here. HrafnTalkStalk 06:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep - There is now a reference to Nature. It is a legitimate field of study. Doesn't anyone read Asimov Foundation anymore? --Bejnar (talk) 05:28, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Weak Keep - Perhaps concerning that the Nature article is by Turchin himself, but the fact Nature published it probably makes this notable enough us. They also did an [http://www.nature.com.eresources.shef.ac.uk/nature/journal/v454/n7200/edsumm/e080703-02.html editor's summary], although I think they might do this for all their essays! Suicidalhamster (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. Seems to be a significant field of study; even if this particular name for it is not well-established, it seems to be the best title for now.--ragesoss (talk) 16:43, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep. It is a known new field of study; I know it has been talked about in at least a couple of conference, and in articles in peer reviewed journals (eg Nature).70.81.15.136 (talk) 22:42, 6 January 2009 (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.