Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information metabolism

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

This is a classic case of a WP:COATRACK; the only point of this article is to direct people towards socionics. There is a legitimate biochemistry use of the term, and it is connected to the cited authors, but it has nothing whatsoever to do with socionics. Suggest deletion without prejudice towards recreation of genuinely relevant content. Mangoe (talk) 17:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

::I'm not a supporter of the idea that page deletion is the way to deal with pages that need to be improved....this is what the "edit" button is for. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

:::I would have suggested doing that, or done it for that matter, except that the current content of the page is completely irrelevant. That's why I said "without prejudice": when someone gets around to writing an article on the actual subject, that's fine, but at the moment the only solution I have for "improvement" is to delete every last character of article text. As far as I can tell, the references are the only truth in the article. Mangoe (talk) 19:30, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 03:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Uncertain changed to Keep or merge Posssibly merge with Antoni Kępiński. consider also Socionics (typology), & Socionics (esoterism), and Aušra Augustinavičiūtė and the site [http://www.socioniko.net/en/index.html]. Judging by the articles in the other major WPs, this may all of it be taken seriously as an extension of Jungian psychiatry. From just reading the present article, i would have assumed otherwise, but I think Jungian theories have always been more highly regarded in Europe. In a sense, they';re a closed subject field of their own, but that does not mean they are not notable. I do not think this is a coatrack in the sense of just adding another link -- it is clear that Kepinski and his followers did use that term, at least in English -- see [http://images.katalogas.lt/maleidykla/Fil71/f44-49Kapusta.pdf]. Based on Gopogle Scholar [http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22Information+metabolism%22&hl=en&lr=&btnG=Search]. I am not sure the term is used in any other sense or by any other school of thought--it does not seem to be standard in any field of biology. DGG' (talk) 05:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete per nom, nothing in this article is worth keeping. A new article could be in future created using WP:RS, but this article has nothing of benefit to the project. Verbal chat 15:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete. Agree is it a WP:COATRACK. Niteshift36 (talk) 15:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• Strong Keep Needs more development. This kind of logic is harmful to Wikipedia, which is meant to be the de facto resource of human knowledge, as stated by Wales. The idea of deleting articles "until they are improved" is unacceptable. That's not what deletion was made for. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:26, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

• strong keep and remove most of the socionics content. socionics does derive from the idea of information metabolism, and does warrant mention here, but the main focus of the article should not be on socionics directly, as kepinski's theory is a well-sourced, notable, and unrelated theory in its own right. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 01:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete or Redirect to socionics, no independent notability. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:20, 30 June 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.