Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Equiveillance

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was DELETE. dbenbenn | talk 19:33, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Equiveillance and Equalveillance

Neologism, only found in 49 hits on Google. Personal research in sociology. Unclear meaning. David.Monniaux 10:27, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Delete Rama 10:37, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge with Sousveillance (also up for VfD - see above) -- RWH 11:50, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
- So you vote to merge these with Sousveillance, and vote to delete Sousveillance. I see. Subtle. ☺ Uncle G 13:58, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
As per the edit history comments for Equiveillance, Speedy Delete (under criterion #2 or criterion #10) Equiveillance as a pointless fork, from an acknowledged typo, of Equalveillance. Vote pending on Equalveillance. Uncle G 12:40, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)
Keep- quite notable --219.78.112.150 14:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete: neologism, original research. I thought at first this was Steve Mann (User:Glogger) again but it turns out it's one of his associates -- try Googling for Stefanos "Steve Mann". Stefanos seems to have the same promotional instincts as Steve, although to his credit, it's not self-promotion. Wile E. Heresiarch 15:35, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Merge and redirect to inverse surveillance. Seems like the terminology may be worth a note in an existing article to me. HyperZonk 17:40, Feb 15, 2005 (UTC)
Keep. Dr. Pantagis appears to have written a good article, and also equiveillance is growing in usage. For example, we have an upcoming conference on this topic, and I believe that equiveillance (the equilibrium/balance between sur- and sous-veillance) is of growing interest to many researchers who are building upon this concept. A number of printed publications, proceedings, and the like, make reference to equiveillance, so I hope that we can keep this article, as distinct from either surveillance or sousveillance. Also, it is preferable to have one word, rather than a two-word solution like inverse surveillance that is harder to search on, and not used as much in the published literature (and means something quite different than equiveillance). Glogger 17:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, original research, not-so-subtle promotion. Side comment: This article is badly written, contains ugly neologisms and once one digs past all the latin, contains little helpful material. Wyss 17:56, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Redirects to Inverse surveillance, as per my Sousveillance vote. Megan1967 01:07, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Delete, unless it gets some serious rewriting. Kukuman 03:54, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Unlike sousveillance, this is only getting 22 non-duplicative Google hits (and many of them appear to be Wikipedia-derivative). Delete as a neologism. Rossami (talk) 05:02, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

let me finish my edits, but due to patient load, it is difficult to get to all the corrections by the five day deadline: i strongly believe there are many concepts that define our modern world that can be represented in an image, or a word, or a cluster of words called a poem. My attempt here is not self promotional; it touches upon the worry of a concerned citizen as I watch many persons slowly become compassionateless to the elderly. Equiveillance is an important concept to many persons, and perhaps to those voting for delete. I hope to express this notion with the rewrites I have begun, opening my series of thoughts phenomenologically as a wikified glog. A detached humanity that does not see the importance of tribal dynamics, falls into the fragmentation of feeling that becomes a cold detachement that leads to human evil. We watch as humans to cooperate and protect. many are weak and exposed to the one way surveillance of imprisoned emotion, locked into the lost of cruel abandonment.

I will need more time before the final verdict, I thank you for your understanding.

stef

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.