Deletion of Information ecology

Comment: As per Bearian and Andrew Davidson passes 
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)

Comment: Information" and "ecology" are common words that are readily mashed together, so there are plenty of opportunities for  here. We don't need to encourage that. Google Scholar dredges up many papers that use the text string "information ecology" (with many different meanings), less than 1% of which mention Eryomin. So, there isn't a well-defined topic, and Eryomin isn't the center of whatever there is
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYNTH)

Comment: per  and , although it needs a little more work to get it past |terrible
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV||WP:GNG||WP:TNT)

Comment: per Bondegezou (version without the problems mentioned by nom exists), Bearian and Andrew Davidson (the concept seemingly passes |the significant coverage criterion even if it is a broad concept which varies in meaning across the literature). Sincerely
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:SIGCOV)