Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noogenesis: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 08:19, 5 March 2021

Noogenesis

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Compare with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Noometry. This article is being promoted by an account that seems attracted to the ideas of Alexei Eryomin among other devotees of ideas relating to noosphere. Much of this material was ported over from the previously deleted noometry article. Superficially, a lot of the references seem to be cherry-picked for identifying use of the term, but there is essentially no third-party notice of this as a concept independent of, say, the normal philosophical approach of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin. This article, then, is serving as a rather dramatic example of WP:SYNTH, WP:POVPUSH, WP:SOAP, and WP:NEO among others. It needs to be deleted as attempted redirects to, for example, noosphere is reverted by the article creator. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 23:16, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nomination. Synthesis of new woolly ideas with old woolly ideas. XOR'easter (talk) 23:28, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: See related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Information ecology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexei Eryomin. jps (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It claims that "Noogenesis is the emergence and evolution of intelligence". This is referenced to four dictionaries that... Lets just say that they are not among the usual major dictionaries that we would typically use to prove that a word exists. Furthermore, if this was true then this should be covered in the existing articles on intelligence and related subjects. It is not. The alleged creators of this theory(?) have biographical articles. One might expect it to be covered there. It is not. It seems to have been added to quite a lot of "See also" sections though. So this is... What? A neologism? A non-notable fringe theory? A POVFORK? A hoax? Who knows exactly? The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that it is not an encyclopaedic subject and that this article, and any walled garden of similar related articles, about this non-topic should be deleted. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks RS. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC).[reply]
Comment The current article appears to have incorporated a lot of Eryomin material that is difficult to find elsewhere. On the other hand, the topic is mentioned in relation to views on evolution (including some pseudoscientific) and in the context of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin in some encyclopedias (see: [1], [2]). An older version of the article was this and also mentioned de Chardin but not Eryomin. Considering that we already have an article about de Cardin but that it has no content on noogenesis, a possible solution would be merging some minimal content there... —Paleo Neonate – 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 14: / Line 14: @@
 *'''Delete'''. It claims that {{tq|"Noogenesis is the emergence and evolution of intelligence"}}. This is referenced to four dictionaries that... Lets just say that they are not among the usual major dictionaries that we would typically use to prove that a word exists. Furthermore, if this was true then this should be covered in the existing articles on [[intelligence]] and related subjects. It is not. The alleged creators of this theory(?) have biographical articles. One might expect it to be covered there. It is not. It seems to have been added to quite a lot of "See also" sections though. So this is... What? A neologism? A non-notable fringe theory? A POVFORK? A hoax? Who knows exactly? The one thing I'm pretty sure of is that it is not an encyclopaedic subject and that this article, and any walled garden of similar related articles, about this non-topic should be deleted. --[[User:DanielRigal|DanielRigal]] ([[User talk:DanielRigal|talk]]) 23:44, 4 March 2021 (UTC)
 *'''Delete'''. Lacks RS. [[User:Xxanthippe|Xxanthippe]] ([[User talk:Xxanthippe|talk]]) 23:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC).
+*'''Comment''' The current article appears to have incorporated a lot of Eryomin material that is difficult to find elsewhere.  On the other hand, the topic is mentioned in relation to views on evolution (including some pseudoscientific) and in the context of [[Pierre Teilhard de Chardin]] in some encyclopedias (see: [https://books.google.com/books?id=R2Y5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA881], [https://books.google.com/books?id=R2Y5DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA2170]).  An older version of the article was [[Special:Permalink/134402284|this]] and also mentioned de Chardin but not Eryomin.  Considering that we already have an article about de Cardin but that it has no content on noogenesis, a possible solution would be merging some minimal content there...  —[[User:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#44a;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Paleo</span>]][[User talk:PaleoNeonate|<span style="font-variant:small-caps;color:#272;text-shadow:2px 2px 3px DimGray;">Neonate</span>]] – 08:19, 5 March 2021 (UTC)