Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ecodynamics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There certainly is no consensus to delete. Editors are encouraged to keep discussing the topic. Drmies (talk) 03:05, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ecodynamics

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

The term "Ecodynamics" isn't mentioned in any of the links and references listed, except in one, namely the book by Boulding. It's very uncertain if the description of Ecodynamics as listed in this article corresponds to the definition used in the Boulding book, since in-line references are referring to other sources that do not mention "Ecodynamics". Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 09:20, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

keep A quick search for scholarly sources [1] shows that the concept is clearly a notable one. Boulding's book alone has received over 900 citations. I'm not sure I have either the expertise or the time to clean up the page, but I'll take a look. Vanamonde (talk) 10:24, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One challenge with this topic is that there are two separate fields with the name "ecodynamics". The first is economic dynamics as discussed Boulding's book and by the econophysics community. The second the ecological dynamics, as discussed by Prigogine and followers and Gurney and Nisbet. So ultimately this should probably be a DAB page. Need to think a bit more about my recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 19:19, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:26, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 17:00, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and, if necessary, rename to something on the lines of "Ecodynamics (economics)". It's clear from the Google Books and Scholar searches linked above that both of the uses of this name identified above by Mark viking are notable. This title should probably end up as a disambiguation page if and when an article on the other sense of ecodynamics is created. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 17:21, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Probably agree with User:Mark viking - do you have any new recommendations? Anon 86.17.222.157 above may have a good idea about a rename. Rename, move, create a disambig? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:27, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.