Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Omniscient technology

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. I think the argument about a merge fails on the lack of sourcing for this material and the fact that the concept is already covered so this is redundant. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Omniscient technology

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

This phrase does not appear in any scholarly work that I can find: Google searches show only its use by marketing entities. It appears that someone affiliated with http://www.pivotmylife.com/ has created this entry in an attempt to beef up the company website (there's a link to the wikipedia article in their mission statement). But, Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought re: WP:FORUM! I therefore propose that this page should be deleted. If, in time, this phrase is adopted and used beyond Dr. Fedkiw's websites, I would then support the page being reestablished. Notmeorhim (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only a neologism, and a not very clearly defined one at that. Borock (talk) 01:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cirt (talk) 04:15, 22 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Though this phrase was coined by Prof. Fedkiw, it has shown up in other places as well, particularly in relation to Little/Big Brother type scenarios. For example, see http://webpages.scu.edu/ftp/BRebboah/omniscient.html . However, it seems what Prof. Fedkiw is trying to encourage is the use of technology in ways that aren't viewed in such a negative light as Big Brother, but instead are seen as playing as key a role in society as the PC or cellphone. Other academics have used the word to refer to the growing presence of technology in every aspect of human life, such as this paper from NASA http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009SPIE.7490E..74H . There have also been books on this topic, see Landauer, T. (1988). Education in a world of omnipotent and omniscient technology. In R. Nickerson & P. Zodhiates (Eds.), Technology in Education: Looking toward 2020. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Seems like the word (and more importantly the meaning for the word that is represented on the wikipage) is prevalent in academia and literature. Spunkymonkey23 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also, another thing to point out is these references date back to 1988, and possibly earlier, so I would argue that the word Omniscient Technology isn't a neologism. Spunkymonkey23 (talk) 18:50, 25 May 2011 (UTC) [reply]
- I have contemplated adding a {{Rescue}} tag to the article. Am close to doing so.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There seems to be some acceptance of this term. More sourced content is needed so I will tag this with {{Rescue}}.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:53, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: article is very poorly sourced and there is little evidence in the wider literature of acceptance of this neologism/term-of-art (as opposed to just random juxtaposition of this adjective-noun combination). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:16, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, /ƒETCH COMMS / 03:10, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 5 gnews hits says it all for its wide usage. fails WP:GNG. [1]. LibStar (talk) 02:38, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to ~~Technology for mass surveillance~~ Surveillance technology(redirect page to Surveillance)-the term has 6070 hits at Google Scholar. The term Omniscient technology lacks notability, but the topic does not; I'm sure there's significant media and scholar coverage about this subject. Lifestreaming, Google's mission to organize the world's information, some Microsoft concept designs for always-on personal video recording... Just look at Mass_surveillance#Commercial_mass_surveillance to see that the concept has been covered, even though the term hasn't been. There are several references at the article that establish notability for the topic ([2], [3], [4]), so WP:GNG is met. Diego Moya (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTESSAY, this is unencyclopaedic unless entirely rewritten. Anthem 19:27, 3 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Can you elaborate? In which way do you think this article not encyclopedic? Diego Moya (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the parts of the article that are about current technology might (assuming that they aren't redundant) be suitable for merger into Mass surveillance or similar. However the material on the neologism, and speculation about the future omniscience of surveillance technology, that is the core of this article, does not belong in Wikipedia. Renaming the article (to 'Technology for mass surveillance' or 'Surveillance technology') would appear to only create a lopsided WP:CFORK of Mass surveillance. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 11:44, 6 June 2011 (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.