Deletion of Educology

Comment: Nominator here. I would like to draw attention to . My emphasis: ''"For a fringe theory to be considered notable, and therefore to qualify for a separate article in Wikipedia, it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals—even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive '''significant''' coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject.... is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced '''extensively''', and in a serious and reliable manner, by '''major publications''' that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers."'' All the references to educology both in the article and this discussion so far seem to be (1) by its promulgators, (2) obscure papers that are ''not'' 'extensive' discussions in 'major publications', (3) a few foreign usages of the word, which may simply be what 'education studies' is called in that language, not referring to the ideas of Steiner et al.; and/or at least some of which appear to be independent inventions of this neologism (such as http://en.cnki.com.cn/Article_en/CJFDTotal-YSJG201501006.htm this one). If anyone doubts that educology is a fringe field, I point out that it claims to be ''"the study of education,"'' but that is already covered by educational sciences which ''"seek to describe, understand, and prescribe educational policy and practice"'' and pedagogy, the ''"theory and practice of education."'' As a thought experiment, if we were to  but keep the article and rewrite it, what would we say about it? |Reliable sources do not recognize the existence of the field. The fact we now have 3 |SPAs showing up on this discussion makes this seem to be a clear case of 
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE||WP:TNT||WP:RS||WP:SPA||WP:ADVOCACY)

Comment: Does not meet . Nearly all the hits in databases I searched were to the above-mentioned ''International Journal of Educology''; those that were not were to open-access journals that I would characterise as suspicious if not Predatory journal|predatory. Nothing that could qualify as "substantial" coverage in sources independent of the field
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:NFRINGE)

Comment: The proposal for deletion appears to arise from perhaps a misreading of the Educology article. First, it is not true to say that the article is based on primary sources from a handful of proponents. A careful reading reveals that the article cites 105 secondary sources and 22 primary sources, and the number of scholars cited in the article who identify as educologists is 30. Many more could be cited, but there are already perhaps too many references. Second, a careful reading of the article also reveals that the Educology article is not a polemic for educology. Rather, it is a well documented description of what constitutes educology as described and exemplified by scholars who identify as educologists and produce educology. Third, the contention that educology “appears to be a nonnotable fringe theory” mischaracterizes the article. A careful reading reveals that the article does not argue that educology is a theory. Rather, the article clearly states that educology is not a theory and that it is the fund of knowledge about the educational process. The fund of knowledge includes empirical facts, explanatory theories and normative arguments. The article states that the fund is produced by careful, disciplined research (educological inquiry) about the educational process, including research about the essential elements of education and the mutual effects of its elements upon each other. And the article notes that the role of theory within educological discourse is to provide terms, explanations and justifications which can be used to guide, clarify and organize educological discourse and that theories within educological discourse compete with each other about how and why education works in the way that it does, how education should be conducted and what purposes education does and should serve. Critical pedagogy, for example, is one of those theories which competes in educological discourse with other educological theories about the proper purpose of the educational process and proper ways to teach, study and learn. Fourth, it is not true that “a search on Google Scholar reveals the word is seldom mentioned in the academic literature.” A search of the term “educology” on Google Scholar reveals over 4000 results. Given these four points, given the substantial 64 year old history of educological literature, beginning with the publications by Lowry Harding (1951), given the number of universities which have departments, schools, colleges and/or institutes of educology and given the number of scholars around the world who have contributed to educological literature over these past 64 years (and in spite of the many people who have not read and assimilated any of this literature or use the term “educology” in their discourse), it would seem reasonable to conclude that the Educology article satisfies the criteria for  and that the article should remain on Wikipedia. To delete the article would certainly be a loss to Wikipedia readers who want to know about educology (1260 page views over the past 90 days
Stance: keep
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Notability (WP:GNG)

Comment: it would be good to see how much wikireader interest in this topic/term there is before deleting it (ie. do/will ed students/academics come across this term in their readings?), anyway whether it is deleted (highly likely) or redirected somewhere agree that at present, the article reads like  and should, at the very least, be |blown up and left as a couple of sentences only ie. "Educology is ...  Educologists include (insert names of notables, if there are any). It is taught at (insert names of notable institutions)." the end
Stance: comment
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:PROMOTION||WP:TNT)

Comment: on  grounds. Perhaps this is a notable subject, perhaps not, but the article is so badly malformed it's impossible to cut through to what's reliable and what's not. Considering the article has been significantly created by one user who does not appear to otherwise contribute to the project, I'm in favour of deleting completely and without prejudice if someone wants to take a crack at an actual article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not (WP:NOTWEBHOST)

Comment: per SportingFlyer's !vote just above and the  concerns raised by the nominator. Moreover, the article reads like a copyvio, thanks to short phrases being lifted from primary sources ("phenomena within the educational process", "the fund of knowledge", "intentionally studies under guidance some content in some physical, social and cultural setting", etc. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0798C78ZF/ref=dbs_a_def_rwt_hsch_vapi_taft_p1_i4https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED494894.pdf), and the fact that what was not lifted lacks all distinguishing features. The text around the plagiarized phrases is like an interminable and opaque PowerPoint presentation with too many words on each slide
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (WP:FRINGE)

Comment: this trivial latinogreek bastardisation by an uneducated coterie; Andragogy, and Pedagogy, are well established alternatives to this . Comparatively this has more sections, references, and content, than both Andragogy, and Pedagogy, combined; it's like it's trying to use verbosity to validate itself. It isn't even ; Andragogy is not gender-biased (man, human, woman, huwoman, wohuman,..so much for "equality
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Citation overkill (WP:REFBOMB||WP:NEUTRAL)