This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus, so keep --Allen3 ^talk 13:10, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

I debated whether or not to go ahead and nominate this page. It's a large text addition by User:Adisaji, who joined Wikipedia today and whose sole contribution is this article. Because it's a large text addition to a new article, I suspected copyvio, but I was unable to locate the text anywhere else on the Internet. I still suspect it may be Original Research. I don't know enough about what the article is talking about to really know, but it just feels wrong. I've added ((cleanup-importance)) and ((cleanup-verify)), but I'm going ahead and calling the VfD and asking for other editors opinions...particularly anyone who might be more knowledgeable about this subject than I. If it's legit, great, let's keep it and make it great, but I'm very dubious of this page. )) EvilPhoenix talk 06:07, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

I'm changing my vote on this one. Adisaji has made an effort to improve the article, and has contacted me to ask for help. I believe user is editing in good faith, and I am willing to give this article a chance to grow. I would ask other editors to consider this when voting. EvilPhoenix talk 03:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Give him more time to improve it. --Malathion 06:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - non-notable; dubious (Black ecology predates asserted) William M. Connolley 15:47:40, 2005-07-15 (UTC).

  Comment: The article now begins... Ecologics ([Ikologiks])is defined as a cumulative-progressive system (science) of philosophical thought or study into universal phenomenlogical knowledge; within the context of integrated dialectical, metaphysical, revolutionary transformational praxis.(Davis, 1977,1999).. I don't think this has any meaning. Certainly it is incompatible with Ecologics is a research term used to describe a field of study or theory that is an extension of the academic discipline known as Human Ecology.. A term cannot be "is" something other than its definition. Still delete, sorry. William M. Connolley 13:45:03, 2005-07-24 (UTC).

• Delete Adisaji, this is no reflection on the quality of your work, but Wikipedia does not allow original research. Abstain This has changed a lot, and I'm not well equipped to sort it out. Friday 04:47, 16 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: remind editor about Wikipedia: No personal attacks - don't presume "we have no knowledge of the subject" - if anything, we're calling it out for deletion, and have every right to question its existence - if you think otherwise, just issue a defense statement and prove it should exist. But this is an encylopedia based on referenced issues, not a scientific journal...the community approaches it as a whole, and that way both expert and non-expert contributes. -- Natalinasmpf 07:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Provisional Keep - This document is awkward. It seems to be either a very talented piece of historical research or a remarkable fraud. In the spirit of good faith, I am going to assume the former. Google seems to verify the existence of many of the key terms (Ikologiks), organizations (Cornell College of Human Ecology, Eco.Logic Powerhouse) and people (Adisa Maina Omar). However, my use of google is not able to establish certain other entities or the connections between them. For example, I have not been able to connect any "Roger M. Davis" to either Adisa Omar, Cornell, or Ecologics. Key facts of this type clearly need citations. At the very least, I would feel a lot better about this work if the author would provide full references for some of Davis' ecologic work. Also, it seems that the term "ecologics" existed at least in 1971 when Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilbert wrote a book by that title. Of course, it is not clear whether they were refering to the same concept as this article. In response to the original research comments, I would observe that most of this article is presented as a collection of facts. As such, it should be possible to document these issues in sufficient detail to avoid the WP:NOR prohibition. Assumming the author is willing to start filling in the citation details (and s/he seems to have expressed a willingness to do this) then I support the existence of this article. Dragons flight 08:02, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

Repy to Dragons flight I have not been able to find the book you referenced by Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilber entitled "Ecologics". Can you provide the ISBN or publisher or the website you obtained this information from. If validated I will include it in my revised submission.--Adisaji 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Adisaji, here is a copy of the citation information from my university's online catalog. Frankly it reads rather strangely, since the "publisher" is given as "Los Angeles". I wonder if this was someone's thesis, or something like that. Regardless, they did use the word "ecologics", though I have no easy way of knowing what they meant by it. Dragons flight 02:04, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

Author      Agran, Libbie.  
Title       Ecologics / written by Libbie Agran & Bobbie Gilbert ; with the help of Joyce King & Penny Kamin.  
Publisher   Los Angeles : Barbara Gilbert and Mary E. Agran, 1971.  
Description 102 p. ; 28 cm.  
Note        Cover title.  
Language    English  
Added Entry Gilbert, Bobbie.  
Format      Book  

• The above does look like someone's thesis paper. I have not found other confirmation for the publishing of this book using the term "Ecologics." I think the Library of Congress records would be a last resort.--Adisaji 04:33, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Well, Adisaji left a comment asking for help on my talk page, which I will provide as much as I can, so I do want to see if this article can be improved. It may be worth waiting on this one. EvilPhoenix talk 19:00, July 17, 2005 (UTC)
• Strong Delete pseudointellectual claptrap. Even direct citations have spelling and grammatical errors, which leads me to believe this is a hoax. Also, as a professor of philosophy who has read much in the vein of environmental ethics and metaphyics, this is (a) like nothing I've ever seen published and (b) too religious to be analytical as the article implies. It would be a disservice to readers to maintain this article. As far as the author below claiming that he will provide "copies of news articles and clippings," I find this claim dubious because he expects prompting, rather than freely presenting the information in the first place. See Dianetics for my thought on the matter. Also, how is the subject anything other than deep ecology in gnosctic clothing? Amicuspublilius 22:47, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, see top of page. EvilPhoenix talk 03:08, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATED!!!--Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)== Strong Rebuke == Amicuspublilius Your comments "pseudointellectual claptrap" were insulting and actually a violation of the "professional" and "non-attack" basis of wikipedia. I hope other members report you. I checked YOUR USER PAGE, and you DO NOT CITE, where you received your degrees in Philosophy and I find your claims of academic excellence flawed and dubious. I'm sure online pesudeo academic degrees are common and easy to obtain. You obviously have deep seated biases/prejudices (ie. comment Dianetics)and perhaps you need to go back to school to learn standards in professional objectivity. For the sake of harmony, I am removing these earlier statements that have been misconstrued as a 'personal attack.' --Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, wikipedia editor does not have spellcheck/grammer check functions. I will attempt to make corrections as found. Rather than making blank criticisms, spend your time providing the specific sentences that have errors.--Adisaji 23:49, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• I addressed the issue at hand, and I hope that rather than attacking me, you or any supporter of this article also address the issue at hand, perhaps by providing citations. If you would like an extended academic critique of this article, I am prepared to give one. Feel free to report me yourself. As for my reference to Dianetics, I am pointing out an article which deals with a controversial subject, points out that the subject is controversial, and provides citations which prove the subject isn't so much hot air. This is as much time as I'm going to spend on the matter. It's up to you to correct the article or provide reasons it doesn't need correction. Amicuspublilius 03:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  Your tone is still belligerant -- for the record I NEVER attacked you. I just replied to your bias and responded to your offensive language and non-verification of your academic qualifications. I don't want to waste more time with "negativity-bickering" so like you said I'll make the corrections and you can vote the way you want. Dianetics and Scientologist (Tom Cruise, John Travota, etc.) may be bogus or "kooks" in your opinion, but some had that same feeling about other movements like Mormans, Hare Krishnas, SevenDay Adventist or those that once said the world was round when the common thinking was the world is flat (middle ages). We may disagree with their ideas but that doesn't mean wikipedia should not list them. I suggest opinions remain just that and pure objective scientific review not be based on cultural,racial or intellectual bias. That should be the golden rule at wikipedia. --Adisaji 04:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  you DO NOT CITE, where you received your degrees in Philosophy reads like an attack to me. You are failing to distinguish between what people say about themselves on their own pages, and the rather higher standards of reference required on article pages. I'm sure online pesudeo academic degrees are common and easy to obtain is most definitely an attack, and you should retract it. William M. Connolley 08:47:24, 2005-07-20 (UTC).

  • It doesn't bother me that he makes that point, although it is a tad irrelevant. There is a reason I don't list where I have my degrees, or where I teach, and my posts should be able to stand for themselves. Amicuspublilius 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• To User:William Connolley, when someone uses language like "hoax" "dubious" and "pseudointellectual claptrap" I TAKE THAT VERY PERSONALLY AND AS AN INSULT ABOUT MY INTEGRITY AND HONESTY. Had he simply referenced the article that would be acceptable, but he personally attacked my sincerity, honesty, integrity. I had every right to question his "academic credentials" when he used them in a paternalistic/condesending fashion and as a basis for discrediting my submission and essentially calling me a liar. I've got better things to do with my time/life than fabricate erroneous material for wikipedia. --Adisaji 14:29, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  This isn't doing you any good you know. William M. Connolley 15:11:55, 2005-07-20 (UTC).

  • This argument is a red herring, and I hope he begins to edit the article with as much tenacity, for his and the article's sake. Also, feel free to see his user talk page where I have provided him a list of revisions he could make to meet "my" and Wikipedia's standards. Two citations, relation to current literature, and a revision of the article's definition (which at this point is nearly the same definition for ecology or biology) doesn't seem too much to ask (Since if this is provided, I could do the grammatical/spelling revisions as penance). I, and anyone here would provide these edits if they could, since there is no prejudice about the article existing per se. Amicuspublilius 15:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from page author:

Talk:Ecologics From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. ECOLOGICS

I am responding to those citing the submission for "deletion" on ECOLOGICS. I spent a lot of time preparing and researching this submission. Yes, it has historical relevance and I am prepared to offer copies of news articles and clippings that would substantiate this claim.

I think it is unfair and unreasonable to delete an article submission just because the reader has NO KNOWLEDGE of the subject. If you don't have knowledge about this topic then you should not comment. I would appreciate any serious contributions and help in editing this material since I am brand new to the Wikipedia community.

I really think this online source is important specifically because minor topics or information often ommitted in commercial dictionaries or encyclopedias can be now be viewed by researchers.

Thank you. Adisaji

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Ecologics"

Comment: "Black Ecology" appears to date from 1970 [1]. This doesn't seem consistent with the article. William M. Connolley 21:10:35, 2005-07-17 (UTC).

I really found the assistance of EvilPhoenix very helpful and supportive. The "comment" by William M. Connolley seems well-founded. I am trying to locate the actual article by N. Hare so I can determine whether the term "black ecology" was used in a generic sense in the journal article or as an actual introduction of a new english word/term. It is possible that both N. Hare and R. Davis both began to popularize the term. For example, the 1960s black activist Stokely Carmichael is largely viewed to have introduced the term 'Black Power.' However, the term 'Black Capitalism' is accredited to former President Richard Nixon, and there is some indication he (Nixon) might have also introduced the term 'black power' preceding Carmichael (see book "Star Spangled Hustle" -- I'll cite detailed references later). I have located several scanned copies from the following presses: The Washington Post, Bronx Press Review, Our Daily Planet, NY Daily News and Cornell Daily Sun which all pertain to the material in the article -- Ecologics. DOES ANYONE KNOW HOW I CAN UPLOAD THIS IMAGES, so interested parties can review them and assist in the ongoing discussion. Natalinasmpf Your comments were I believe a violation of the very Wikipedia policies you accused me of violating. It seems you just want to emotionally dismiss the submission -- for the record, I did not attack an editor. I'm trying very hard to be polite and scholarly.

(Updated!!!) I think at this point ... maybe the article should just be DELETED. I'm feeling so pressured to revise this article before your "five day review" deadline. The nature of this research for acquiring citations will take time, since the material is not easily recoverable and deals with material over thirty years ago. This was well before the digital age and internet age -- so most citations will have to be manually researched at the libraries -- not Internet. Before, I take time and money to do that (often to get archived reprints from journals or newspapers cost money) PLEASE MAKE THE DECISION TO DELETE OR NOT DELETE. --Adisaji 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC) I will revise the submission as needed "as a work in progress" in good faith if I can just have some patience from all you editors and respondents. Thank you. --Adisaji 09:29, 19 July 2005 (UTC)Adisaji[reply]

The below images have been uploaded to wikipedia. I have not posted them at the article site or revised the actual article until I receive clear support for completing this submission. --Adisaji 00:36, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• This is almost a decent case to start an article black ecology, although it isn't clear whether the "black ecology" in question would be a branch of ecology (a biological science) or of environmental ethics (a philosophical science). Amicuspublilius 03:49, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• I am considering starting a "Black Ecology" page as well as soon as I get the first page "Ecologics" refined, tweaked and put in conformity with wikipedia standards. I have noted your other comments (above) -- and responded.--Adisaji 04:34, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

File:RMD Cornell Daily Sun - 4-27-78.jpg

File:Named EPA -Bronx Press review 1972.jpg

File:TalkingBlackEcology - ODP 12-1971.jpg

File:Wash Post -Courtland Milloy - 2-7-89.jpg

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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.