Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Civionic engineering (civionics) Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Civionic_engineering_(civionics)

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. (non-admin closure) Superflewis (talk) 14:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Civionic engineering (civionics) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Subject is a neologism. There is not wide acceptance of this term in the engineering community. The "coining" of the term by one civil engineering professor does not establish notability. Wikipedia should not be a place to further establish a neologism. ¢Spender1983 (talk) 02:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A detailed discussion of how the majority of the references point to the same professor is provided on the article talk page. I did that to try to elicit a discussion from the single purpose account used to create the article. - ¢Spender1983 (talk) 03:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. —¢Spender1983 (talk) 14:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as neologism. Jclemens (talk) 19:47, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It has been used in publications by third parties too. Not a large number of publications, but still enough to meet the basic notability criterion. You said in the talk page: "In summary, a couple of these new links show that the word is beginning to be accepted beyond Dr. Mufti's circle. I don't think that the sum total of these provide the notability required for a wikipedia article." I agree with the first sentence but not the second. It is a question of where exactly to draw the line, and I'd rather err on the side of inclusion unless it is really obvious that no one other than the author is using a term. --Itub (talk) 10:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These sources [1][2] clearly show that the existence and use of the term can be verified in third party sources, without resorting to original research. Obviously the article needs a lot of work though. MickMacNee (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, Google hits show that this has passed from neologism to nascent discipline. William Avery (talk) 20:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.