Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emergy

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. Nakon 17:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emergy

Emergy (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

When first I read this article I was left wondering it it might not be some elaborate Sokal-stye hoax experiment visised upon us. Besdides in the works of Fr. Odum and the charmingly named Scienceman, this nebulous concept of "emergy" does not appear to have achieved mainstream current, neither in popular media or in scientific puplications. (with the exception of a single EPA funded study "Environmental Accounting using Emergy: Evaluations of the state of West Virginia"} The blizzard of rererences given often have little or nothing to do with the ostensible topic of this article. It's not exactly a WP:HOAX, but ultimately it's a non-notable fringe theory.<eleland/talkedits> 22:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

1.Re: mainstream current. It is not the case that a concept needs to achieve "mainstream current" in popular media before being considered appropriate for Wikipedia. Hence there is no valid argument.

2.Re: emergy is not in current scientific publications. A search of science direct had 161 Articles Found which mention emergy in title, keywords, abstract. 9 to be published in 2008. It is current. Hence there is no valid argument.

3.Re: references. It is not the case that that a longer list of references qualifies an article for deletion. Hence there is no valid argument.

4.Re: notability. Criteria for the evaluation of notability are not specified. Hence no argument is possible. Sholto Maud (talk) 11:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

• Speedy keep (and cleanup) There are hundreds of Google Scholar hits for "emergy" by about a dozen different authors, including several in Science. It looks like its heyday was in the early 90s. Bm gub (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep and rewrite. There is a remarkable amount of confusion to be removed, and no attempt at all at an objective article. The term however has been used to a significant extent. DGG (talk) 00:08, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep. It's certainly a reasonable topic for an article, especially if Odum used it as indicated, and the notability is there even if a bit on the fringe. The problem, of course, is the painful presentation, that is over-wordy and often obscure. The topic is sufficiently complex and outside of my field that I don't feel at all like trying to simplify it, but the article needs editing help from someone. Tim Ross·^talk 11:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
• Delete. The article is beyond repair. By my informal count, the success rate of "keep and rewrite" for this type of out-of-the-mainstream article (with a very small group of past-but-still-active major contributors) is close to nil. And while this type of article languishes, it diminishes WP's reputation. -- Iterator12n ^Talk 19:57, 29 January 2008 (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.