Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infonomics

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 delete. The last two keep arguments are not offering any rebuttal to the GNG based deletion arguments. Also, a lot of references mentioning a term in passing is not evidence of notability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:59, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infonomics

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Article on a Gartner-coined term of art, rather obviously created by a Gartner staffer (update: the editor self-identified on-wiki as Doug Laney, the coiner of the term). I just pruned 48k of web links from this. Calling WP:NEO given the absence of academic sources to back up the Gartner coinage. Guy (Help!) 23:15, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:53, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Merry Christmas! ^{Babymissfortune} 01:54, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of meeting WP:GNG through reliable 3rd party sources. At best it is a POV-fork from the legitimate Information Economics article. MarginalCost (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - This article references dozens of sources including the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times, Forbes, various research organizations and universities, and others involved in and helping to develop this new economic concept. Is not about any individual or company. No one owns the IP or other rights whatsoever to the infonomics concept. Doug_Laney (talk) 17:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)EthansDad — Note to closing admin: Ethansdad (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]
Comment I really like this Google Scholar search result:

Herring, Benjamin L. "Join our Tribe and you could win an Infonomics Hoodie!." Infonomics 35 (2009): 4.

And I also like this claim:

The term is a portmanteau of "information" and "economics" but should not be confused with information economics or economics of information which refer specifically to how information is used in decision-making, rather than how information behaves or can/should be treated as an economic asset itself.

But only because the very first reference in information economics is to a paper titled "Information as an Economic Commodity". XOR'easter (talk) 22:42, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was not a neutral encyclopedia article before it was radically cut for good reasons. Rather, it was a brochure written to promote a neologism, and written by the person who coined the neologism. This person has been edit warring to keep in crappy promotional content rife with promotional external links. The conflict of interest is obvious for all to see, and if the self-promoter had good sense, he would cease and desist immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vanispamcruftisement. XOR'easter (talk) 15:54, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is "vanispamcruftisement" a portmanteau or a neologism.? David in DC (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Both, I guess. XOR'easter (talk) 18:53, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's either one or the other but not both, XOR. E Eng 22:49, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the link. Great essay. David in DC (talk) 20:59, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable neologism masquerading as a field of study blantly violating WP:NOR. No reference that defined the term as such level of "academic discipline" or study field. Add to the apparent conflict of interest with editor who want promote the term using Wikipedia violating WP:NOT again. –Ammarpad (talk) 16:25, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources are provided discussing this term. Therefore it fails according to our notability guideline. As stated above, at best this is a POV fork from Information Economics. Also, the blatant self-promotionalism of this article, and the edit-warring by its creator, ought not be rewarded. David in DC (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipeida is not a Gartner marketing blog. Billhpike (talk) 04:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article as it stands is the mere shadow of the grotesque self-promotion it once was. Don't forget to review the creator's edit history, and What links here, to root out the tentacles extending elsewhere in the project. E Eng 05:13, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note for completeness this discussion at ANI. XOR'easter (talk) 15:24, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't said a thing about my XOR joke. E Eng 15:41, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't see it until just now. But I like it. XOR'easter (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shirley you know you're a sitting duck with a username like that. E Eng 22:03, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:06, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - As usual, Wikipedia self proclaimed guardians are trying to get rid of content they don't understand...Ydemontcheuil (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Last time Ydemontcheuil (talk · contribs) voted to retain an article, she also invoked Gartner’s coverage of the topic. [1] I hear a quacking sound Billhpike (talk) 08:36, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retain - as Research Director at Bloor Research - a competitor to the Gartner Group - I think this article should be retained and, indeed, expanded. Infonomics does not, in my opinion, represent a subset of Information Economics. In particular, the latter doesn't have the granularity I would expect from Infonomics. For example, determining the value of a particular dataset to a specific business objective within a single organisation. Yet that is precisely what some vendors are doing (even though they don't call it Infonomics - and probably won't if the term gets too associated with Gartner).InfoPhil (talk) 12:21, 20 December 2017 (UTC) — InfoPhil (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

That's actually an argument to delete. You basically said that it's a neologism whose currency is likely to be reduced because Gartner tries to "own" it, as we have seen here. Guy (Help!) 15:34, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

InfoPhil (talk · contribs) has indicated that he joined Wikipedia just to make the above comment. See [2] Billhpike (talk) 14:31, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've opened a sock puppet investigation. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Ethansdad. Billhpike (talk) 13:09, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. But, I now have a burning desire to start an article on vanispamcruftisement. Ifnord (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2017 (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.