Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sociocybernetics

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

This was nominated for speedy deletion as "original research", but that's not a speedy case, so I bring it here. Some hits, but not a lot for a 'science'. Way out of my field of expertise, so no vote (I just want to get some resolution). Niteowlneils 14:53, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Neutral for now. The article is a total mess, but it may have a salvageable kernel. Not sure if the term "sociocybernetics" has any real currency, but some of what is here seems to relate (at least vaguely) to the work of Gregory Bateson. If that tie is legitimate, this would be encyclopedic. -- Jmabel 16:34, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

• Keep, cleanup. Confusing, but seems to be a real topic. — Gwalla | Talk 17:30, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• keep - sociocybernetics does exist as a field of science. The article is only unfinished, the contributor stopped working on it when it was listed for deletion. What he has written sofar is encyclopedic and factually acurate.--Fenice 21:06, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)
  • Is this factually accurate? Googling "sociocybernetics" together with random terms from this article did not find anything. I am convinced sociocybernetics exist but I am not convinced this is an accurate description. Andris 12:44, Aug 31, 2004 (UTC)
    • The existing text is not how I would start an article about this subject, but it's also a valid description. Searching google for the keywords "sociocybernetics" and "five levels" I just found this [1]. To get good quality info about the subject however, I would not resort to the internet but to a library, because sociocybernetics is also used by many consultants - you will probably mainly find teaser texts or PR-texts. --Fenice 06:17, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep provided the author works on it and makes it into a valid article. Trilobite (Talk) 02:14, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• It's a real field, and needs an article. This article is not very good, but the basic framework and references are salvageable. Keep for cleanup. -FZ 13:11, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)
• keep - Real field, simply needs cleaning up Tmq 15:28, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)
• Keep, it is a genuine field! -- Crevaner 01:18, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)
• Keep, list on WP:PNA. ··gracefool |☺ 04:27, 4 Sep 2004 (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.