Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/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 delete‎. When counting Uncle G's unbolded Delete, I see a clear consensus here. The proposed merge was not echoed by others, but anyone is welcome to recreate the page as a redirect to Civil engineering, as this would likely pass our much lower threshold at RfD. Owen× ☎ 14:47, 2 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Civionics

[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)

Invented discipline which is very uncommon and does not pass any notability tests. Most GS hits are for a company with this name, very little secondary sourcing. It was AfD'd in 2008 and retained them based upon the argument that it was a "nascent discipline" and had a few sources. 16 years later it can no longer be considered nascent, it is a failed neologism. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This minor (attempted?) neologism doesn't appear to have taken significant hold of the public imagination. At best, it might merit inclusion as a minor, restricted jargon in Wiktionary? But I'm not even convinced of that. Spideog (talk) 11:48, 11 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep like a diamond for a retirement fund. I really have to ask Spideog if he did searches of the term on Google Books and Google Scholar, as those settle the case for keeping an article on this in stone. Google Scholar provides you no shortage of pieces entirely on the discipline (with its name in the headlines of these many articles), and several books, all WP:ACADEMIC from as early as 2004 all the way to 2022 have dedicated at least a page talking about this concept in detail. Some examples: A 2007 book I found dedicated an entire section about a case study of civionics. A CRC Press book from 2020 covered the usage of a civionics system on a bridge in Winnipeg, so clearly this is being incorporated into the real world. This definitely indicates a frequently-encountered subject in the world of engineering and technology. Even a normal Google search should've started giving you this coverage by the third page. Granted, all of the coverage is in academic journals, but since Wikipedia holds a crown to those above any others, and the sources for this topic are plentiful, that's really not a point against it. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 04:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:36, 18 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, CycloneYoris ^talk! 09:32, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhh merge to civil engineering. Hyperbolick (talk) 09:35, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at books, too, and what HumanxAnthro has missed that the book sources, including the ones that xe hyperlinked, are all by Aftab Mufti, citing xyrself as the coiner of this idea. For example, the very first book that comes up for me is a 2005 paper in some conference proceedings authored by Mufti that has the inline citation from Mufti to Mufti: "CIVIONICS (Mufti, 2003) is a new term coined from the integration of Civil-Electronics […]". The "third page" Google Web results (an unsafe reference as Google results vary from editor to editor) are presumably to the Springer and Sage Publications journal articles also all written by Aftab Mufti. This concept has no evidence, even from the sources cited here, that in over 20 years it has escaped its inventor and been acknowledged by other people to the extent that they have documented it. An idiosyncratic academic concept that does not take hold beyond its creator is exactly what our no original research policy addresses. Uncle G (talk) 10:28, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I refuse to believe you looked at my examples carefully. The CRC Press book was not written by Mufti at all, and yet it still dedicated an entire section about its use on a real-world bridge in Canada, which I'm pretty sure Mufti was not involved in. The 2007 book I linked was also not by Mufti. It heavily discussed the concept without his help, only citing a paper of his once, which doesn't mean it was by him. I'll grant you a lot of the Google Scholar sources credited Mufti as an author, but even then, many of those Mufti sources had a different bunch of other authors, and I mean a lot of different authors. This is not factoring in the Civionics articles not written by him I found [1] [2] [3] [dbpia.co.kr/Journal/articleDetail?nodeId=NODE10763719] [4] [5] [6][7] [8] [9] and this that recommends the familiarity of it. A University curriculum as late as 2023 taught an introduction to Civionics, no mention of Mufti at all in there and no credit to him. Acknowledged here in a book with no involvement from Mufti. This cites Civionics as a potential real-world necessity. This all indicates acknowledgement and coverage of the concept beyond Mufti. User:HumanxAnthro (BanjoxKazooie) 13:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As demonstrated by Uncle G, this neologism is not widely used beyond its originator. Sandstein 09:40, 2 February 2025 (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.