Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Netocracy

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 no consensus Mangojuice^talk 17:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Netocracy

Netocracy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Seems more plausible than most unreferenced neologisms, but tags have failed to improve the article. Lots of recognizable names in the piece, is it worthy? Deizio talk 17:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

• comment - I have seen a book in my local library with the title "Netocracy", so it is not OR. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Any ideas about author, ISBN etc.? Deizio talk 22:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Alexander Bard & Jan Soderqvist, Netocracy : the new power elite and life after capitalism (London : Reuters, 2002). ISBN 1903684293. --Midnighttonight (rendezvous) 22:20, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Angus McLellan (Talk) 17:54, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Move to Netocracy (book) and possibly cleanup. Tarret 20:46, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Netocracy: The New Power Elite and Life After Capitalism [1]. ISBN 978-1903684290

Is also referenced in the following books:

Organs without Bodies [2]; ISBN:978-0415969215

Images of Organization [3]; ISBN 978-1412939799

A Hacker Manifesto [4]; ISBN 978-0674015432

There are several other books that reference this term. SkierRMH 21:01, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment The standard for inclusion of a neologism is a bit higher than simple passing references to the word. Either the word needs to have spread into massive widespread usage, or it needs to be discussed in secondary sources as a new word that--for example, an article that discusses the new word as a concept that's gaining acceptance. In any of the sources that you mentioned above, how is the word used? (I'm not against including it, I just want to see some stronger examples of where it's used.) Tarinth 21:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at those book through Amazon's "Search Inside" feature, "A Hacker Manifesto" and "Images of Organization" only have one hit for the term - the bibliographical listing of the book's name. Zizek's "Organs without Bodies" discusses the book and its concept for several pages in order to criticize/mock the authors' ideas as "a supreme example of cyber-Stalinism". Bwithh 03:53, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Let's suppose the article passes the neologism test (I think it does). What evidence is there that it's notable? This needs to be addressed, instead of just the use of the term. CRGreathouse (t | c) 10:31, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Delete without prejudice to re-creation I looked at the amazon.com references mentioned above, but those aren't really references. They are actually just back-of-the-book endorsements by the author of the Netocracy book. I'm certainly open to creating a new article for this term as soon as someone can show some actual references and notability. Tarinth 17:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Used and useful term per numerous books cited. I have seen the term in the press for many years. Please add the references cited in this AfD to the article itself. Edison 00:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:08, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Bigtop 00:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as neologism with insufficient currency in authoritative published works. While its possible that the editorial board of Wired thought up "Netocracy" at some point amongst the other 999,999 neologisms they've tried to disseminate over the years, this particular coinage doesn't seem to turn up in the Wired archives at all[5]. So I'm kind of wondering about the intro of this article. About 12 unique hits in Factiva news database, half of them in mainstream publications including a few profiles of Bard. 28 hits in Google Scholar - a lot of the hits are just the title of the book rather usage of the term[6]. Ditto with the 8 hits on Amazon books[7]. Note that there's a significantdifference between a work using the term/concept substantively in its main text and a work simply referring to term/concept as part of listing a book title in a bibliography or or passing mention of another author's views.Bwithh 03:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per Bwithh's last point --froth^{T C} 06:50, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Strong Keep citations include major publications and three books. This is the type of word that people need a good article on especially since the usage of the word has changed since it was first coined in 1999. It is also being used for Internet+democracy. It needs a well referenced article and not just a two sentence dicdef. Time magazine has used it. People come to Wikipedia for an explanation--Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 19:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Has enough circulation & equity to convince me to err on the side of inclusiveness. —— Adrian Lamo ·· 2007-01-04 23:30Z
• Keep Quite notable, proof of which is found in the sources provided above. S h a r k f a c e 2 1 7 22:45, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep per Sharkface. Cited and properly formatted, a gem. ~ Flameviper 14:12, 10 January 2007 (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.