Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionomics (2nd nomination)
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
— User:EdJohnston, 04:02, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Stance: delete
Cited policy: WP:NEO (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary)