Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naturoid

Naturoid

Naturoid (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • AfD statistics)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Neologism promoted by a not notable single author, and not used in any other source.Guyonthesubway (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• PLEASE NOTE: The original AfD was vandalised by an IP that edits this article. The original text is restored above.

• Delete Looks like an essay or school term paper that someone shoved onto WP. Does a lot of work fluffing up the term, but doing some searches shows that it's probably regurgitation of the book and author which produced the term instead of having sources which actually discuss the term. Fails WP:N. Angryapathy (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do not delete This theory, naturoids, is an essential part of a larger debate worldwide on the nature of the "artificial" - beyond artificial intelligence - similar to the exchanges of decades ago by people like John Searle, Joseph Weizenbaum, Feigenbaum, Douglas Hofstadter, Herbert Simon, etc.

Denis Baggi, Research Scientist in Computer Generated Music —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlouismusic (talk • contribs) 11:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do not delete It is too early to say this term will not be used for this very important phenomenon. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.164.61 (talk) 17:51, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Exactly. The term has no use right now outside of the person who coined it, and Wikipedia is not the place to promote it. Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do not delete I believe this article about naturoids it's a fundamental contribution toward a better knowledge of human and social sciences, with a special and necessary link to the world of technology. Please do not delete this article.

Giovanni Messori, Social Researcher —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.26.41.82 (talk) 00:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Weak Keep The article is not well written, but the term "naturoid" has found some usage in mainstream journals like Nature [1] . --MelanieN (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Is a review of one his articles really "finding usage in the mainstream"? Guyonthesubway (talk) 15:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Do not delete While the article could perhaps be improved, it is not badly written, and is clearly not mere hearsay or opinion. Although it regards a neologism, it is one that has obviously provoked discussion and interest within a small but ever-growing part of the scientific community; and if the English science writer Philip Ball feels comfortable using and discussing the term and its related concepts, who are we, in our ignorance, to question its merit? The comment, here above, regarding a "school term paper" is both unfair and unjustified. Care has obviously been taken to write grammatically correct and formal English on a subject that is both interesting and novel, which is more than can be said for a good many WP articles that have not been threatened with deletion. My investigations suggest that the article has been accessed some 18,000 times since June 2009, with an overall increment in the monthly rate, which must say something about its value to some WP readers.

Julian Locke, Ph.D. student in Methodology of the Social Sciences, Florence, Italy.

• Comment I love the sockfest of people who know the creator of the term. Unfortunately, they haven't provided anything but personal opinions (besides melanie, although I disagree with her). Can we get some evidence that this term has been picked up by mainstream media or science? (Like Guy said, the Nature article only reviews an article by the author of the term). Angryapathy (talk) 14:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As the author of the theory - and not of the article that I have only occasionally edited - really I do not understand the policy of WP. Is WP an Enc behaving in the same way as traditional Encs do, i. e. reporting only well established and universally recognized knowledge? By the way, such a policy contradicts the habit of WP to report on current events while neglecting the real-time power of the Internet in helping new academical traditions of research, at the only condition that their autonomous take-off is already a fact. I think that the rule of ‘neologism...to promote etc.’ is, in principle, appropriate if the neologism comes from of a teenager’s blog but not when it comes from a researcher who has published it since 20 years worldwide in leading journals, books and university lectures, even if, up to now, his theoretical proposal has not reached a... mass media recognition. And surely never will. Anyway, I used the term naturoid in the invited ‘artificial’ entry for the ESTE MacMillan traditional-style Enc without getting any objections by the editors – though I was known by only one of them. I added myself an ‘Impact and Applications Section’ in which are reported uses and references to my research that are at my knowledge. Nevertheless, I cannot guarantee that the term ‘naturoid’ will spread worldwide and will last over decades as if it were the name of a famous consumer product, of a singer or of an earthquake. But, de facto, it is a continuously published and quoted concept since 1990. Its ambition is to investigate the ‘laws’ governing every attempt to reproduce natural things through technology and, therefore, it cannot involve but a ‘niche of interest’, i.e. exactly what an Enc should be interested to. Thanks for reading and, please, forgive my bad English.

Massimo Negrotti - University of Urbino

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 12:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)