Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Democratization of knowledge

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. The article isn't the greatest, but the term is in use, as sources below show. I believe that's enough for keeping now. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 05:46, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Democratization of knowledge

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

Is this a valid article? It strikes me as a coatrack for asserting how neat Wikipedia is, without actually asserting any notability in third party sources for either the term or the wider concept, as opposed to the use of the internet to generally 'democratize' anything.MickMacNee (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree. It reads like an essay. -- Taku (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All of the issues discussed above can be fixed by rewritting the article, there are 96 news articles on this term. (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL) Ikip (talk) 23:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This book says, "The democratization of knowledge is a phrase often used in articles promoting the virtues of electronic communications (1, 15, 30). However, in order to fulfill this promise..." (analysis and criticism follows for two paragraphs). Clearly, this concept is getting scholarly analysis, complete with footnotes. Therefore the article needs to incorporate this source, and others, so as to become less about and less pro-Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 04:44, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep a brief search shows many hits in google scholar: [1] and books: [2], and even some news hits: [3]. This is clearly a mainstream concept and much has been written about it in reliable sources: very solidly notable. People arguing to delete seem to be arguing about the current status of the page; if the page needs improvement then the page needs improvement. I see no question about notability here. Also, I added a source and comment connecting this topic to eBird; this issue has been discussed in the context of science, with eBird as an exapmle of it. Cazort (talk) 12:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - rescue and fix. Bearian'sBooties (talk) 18:46, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Well-known and notable concept, here's a few books that may help. -- Banjeboi 10:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. -MBHiii (talk) 15:48, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is this a valid nomination? It seems not, as there is no mention of the obvious alternatives to deletion nor any examination of the topic as performed by the other put-upon editors above. AFD is not cleanup. Colonel Warden (talk) 17:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Afd is not cleanup' is sometimes just a pointles cliche when there is nothing to even cleanup. On its current state, even after 'put upon' improvement, transwiki to Wiktionary is the only serious alternative to junking it and waiting for a decent copy, if that is even possible, to emerge. Creating an article is more than just dumping a random collection of citations of usage of a term together, giving it an OR lede, and calling it an article. MickMacNee (talk) 17:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I just de-orphaned this article with 5 in-links; it was very easy to find natural and relevant places to link to this article. Cazort (talk) 23:24, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability has been established, has potential to be expanded. Narthring (talk • contribs) 05:19, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - It's WP:Synth. None of those sources appear to actually reference the term. If it reads like an essay it's probably WP:Synth, and even after cleanup I don't see it being any difference. If someone can prove there's an actual academic use of this term I'd change my mind, but what it is now is questionable. Shadowjams (talk) 23:44, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Abductive's citation above which is from an academic source. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:52, 28 August 2009 (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.