Deletion of Socionomics (2nd nomination)

Comment: Some of the article's content seems to be misleadingly out of place.  A majority of the section titled ''Socionomics#Similar research and analysis|Similar research and analysis'' is simply a listing of cited research about "herd behavior," but it does not provide sufficient links back to the topic of the article.  In and of itself, this is valuable information for herd behavior or social mood, but I fail to see it's importance in ''this'' particular article, other than the mention that Pretcher's theory is based off of it.  That being said, this removes a chunk of third party sources that are contained within the theory, leaving Pretcher's arguments (as outlined in ''Socionomics#From the wave principle to socionomics|From the wave principle to socionomics'') alone to prove the interaction between the elements of his theory.  Thus, it would seem that this article does not pass . Therefore, I would recommend '''delete
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: I'm sorry, this looks like re-created previously deleted material by an editor who not only has a |conflict of interest, but was involved with the previous deletion debate.  I am far from convinced this is anything but a |fringe theory
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI||WP:FRINGE)

Comment: I don't take a position on whether the re-creation of the article was against policy. It is understandable that editors are slow to grant the imprimatur of Wikipedia to what seems to be an entire new scientific field.  I'm guessing that not all the editors who voted 'Delete' above would object to inclusion of similar material in the Robert Prechter article. Rgfolsom's table of publications is stretching to include some pretty thin evidence, in my opinion. Take a close look at the claim of NSF support for socionomics and you'll need a microscope to figure out whether NSF endorsed anything at all. I don't see that the burden of  has been met, and I don't see the granting of general respect by scientists that would entitle socionomics to have its own article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Certainly |fringe, but notable enough fringe to have it's own article.  If the article has COI or NPOV problems fix those, they are not enough to require deletion
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: It is up to us to decide about whether socionomics actually exists. What sets this article apart from a speculative topic in physics it that it claims the existence of an entirely new science altoghether, like claiming the existence physionomics. In a scientific test, this article would be shown to be 24-carat |neologism
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: I've seen no sign that this actually IS notable, and many many warning signs that it isn't, what with the suspect sourcing and utter lack of demonstrating any actual real-world impact, the |conflict of interest of the principle author, the overblown arguments, and the intense level of special pleading. At best it should be blown up completely and rewritten from scratch by someone '''other than''' Rgfolsom or Sposer
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest (WP:COI)

Comment:  doesn't appear to be a problem in this article.  Rather, it's just misplaced information.  The article does not used the cited information to advance an opinion, as  would imply, it just implicity states (somewhat) revelant background information.  However, it appears that
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:SYN)

Comment: or failing that, '''delete''' per . Some comments don't seem to appreciate that  and  are separate guiding principles, and that thickly annotated prose may still be original research&mdash;especially when the citations are only trivial mentions of a topic linked with |new synthesis. I'm also concerned about the problem Bob mentions above: allowing such recreations will encourage users to perpetually recreate articles on every contentious deletion in hopes of a different result
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO||WP:N||WP:OR||WP:SYN)

Comment: More accurately, Rl's cites shows that it flunks , as none of the people pushing their wildly different and inconsistent personalized definitions have achieved any measure of notability for their preferred definition
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NEO)

Comment: Whether it can be proven to exist or not is not up to us to decide.  There are many topics on physics that cannot be proven however have an article.  Once we take it upon ourself to prove the content of a reliable source, the whole concept of  and  fall ino 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:CITE||WP:RS||WP:OR)

Comment: as a clear neologism. It harms the reputation of any encyclopedic project when it used, manipulated and gamed to advance the theory or research of any individual, no matter how many papers havve been presented.  is not the issue here: whether it is an accepted term that merits encyclopedic tyreatment per  is the issue. And reviewing the citations provided above, this doesn't pass
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Reliable sources (WP:RS||WP:N)

Comment: Readers can see for themselves which of the two of us is ranting and violating ; Rgfolsom has repeatedly reverted my edits that corrected his POV-pushing, has lost every time a third opinion was sought, and has already been blocked once for edit-warring as a result.  Rgfolsom's comment misrepresents an arbitration decision, and the comment's concern for precedent is contradicted by the fact that he recreated and is defending an article that was already deleted, despite existing consensus. , but it is certainly not a one-way ratchet
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No personal attacks (WP:NPA||WP:CCC)

Comment: per nom. Whilst there is no denying the existence of articles and books promoting the subject, I don't think anyone can claim that socionomics actually exists ''per se''. The content of this article could easily be classified as a topic within sociology, psychology or economics, but it delibterately distances itself from mainstream social science, leading me to believe this is |original research dressed up as pseudo-science. The only reason why the authors would want to distance themselves from the mainstream is to promote their books or lecture tours by making them appear to be the 'new wave' in social science. As
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:No original research (WP:NOR)