Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disaster informatics

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 no consensus. - Mailer Diablo 23:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disaster informatics

Fails WP:NEO as well as WP:VAIN. The google search for "disaster informatics" turns out a total of 143 hits, 56 unique. The main hit is with the work of David Wild who seems to have coined the phrase. Perhaps not unrelated (ahem) is the fact that the article nominated here has been created by Davidwild (talk · contribs). Now of course there might be a day where this terminology is widely used and accepted, but until that day comes this should not have its own article. Pascal.Tesson 18:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - vanity article. —Hanuman Das 00:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by David Wild I don't consider this any more of a neologism than any derivative branch of Informatics (such as Health Informatics, Geoinformatics etc), and certainly less so than the existing GIDEON Informatics, Parliamentary informatics and so on, although the area is very new. I don't think there is another term which encompasses the application of technology in disaster areas though.

Regarding vanity, it's certainly not a personal conflict of interest. As a researcher in the new field of disaster inforamtics, I feel qualified to begin a page - surely a requirement that an author not be a researcher in the subject area of a page on a research field is counter productive? In the article I currently just give a definition, and links to 18 resources, only one of which is a site I am connected with in any way (the School of Informatics Disaster Informatics page at IU, which also contains information about other researchers).

I am open to discussion on this, particularly as to where it may or may not fit the neologism criteria of Wikipedia. Obviously the criteria are quite involved and I'm new to Wikipedia submission :)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Davidwild (talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 July 2006.

Comment: David, you should vote to Keep the article if you feel that it should be kept. --Richard 07:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Health Informatics and geoinformatics are in very wide use. The WP:NEO guidelines apply to recently coined terms that do not have sufficiently wide use to merit inclusion. I do agree that Parliementary informatics seems to fail this (although it might be that it also needs to be submitted to AfD) as for GIDEON Informatics it's a company so the comparison is irrelevant. Pascal.Tesson 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 15:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - The term is used by the Western Disaster Center so it passes WP:VAIN. Perhaps more substantive content would help. --Richard 07:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep per Richard's findings. --HResearcher 09:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete I don't really see any evidence that the term is in notable use, one ocurrence doesn't convince me. I'm not convinced that there is a discipline here to be covered. The article is little more than a dic def now, and until I'm convinced that there's anything more to be said about this putative discipline, that is unique or particular to this discipline, then it looks like a neologism to me. Pete.Hurd 03:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, just over the neologism threshold. Sandstein 16:38, 9 August 2006 (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.