Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geocivilization

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 delete‎. While I don't see a clear consensus that the term itself is non-notable, I do see a rough consensus that the article as written is largely OR/SYNTH. Ping me if you need the deleted sources to rewrite this in draftspace. Owen× ☎ 15:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Geocivilization (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

This is essentially WP:OR based on an obscure research article with lots of WP:COI added in. It is tied to the article Ahmed Sarirete that was created by the same user presumably as WP:PROMO and which is also currently under consideration for deletion. Essentially the concept seems to be introduced in this obscure academic article https://scholarsarchive.byu.edu/ccr/vol66/iss66/9/ which has been cited a total of 7 times in the last 13 years and does not have seemed to have gained any traction. While not totally made up, most of it is WP:OR or WP:FRINGE with some references to existing topics but the term does not seem to be widely accepted in academia as a search in JSTOR and Google Scholar shows. --hroest 17:43, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. hroest 17:45, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In marking this article as patrolled, I left a talk page message noting that "geocivilization is frequently used in political science research to discuss how geography shapes politics and vice versa, satisfying WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV for retention." Here are some examples of its use:

• Sebastian-Gabriel Popescu (2019-04-25). "And Yet the Black Sea Can Be an Essential Geostrategic Pivot in the Solution of Euro-Asiatic Endogenous Conflictuality". Research Association for Interdisciplinary Studies Conference Proceedings. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.2651185.
• Ciderova, Denisa; Repasova, Vladimira (September 2019). "Geo-Heterogeneity in the Context of the EU". European Scientific Journal. 9.
• Mohanty, Manoranjan (2018). "Sectional President's Address: Alternative Historiography: Tan Chung's Geo-Civilisational Paradigm". Proceedings of the Indian History Congress. 79: 644–653. ISSN 2249-1937.
• "Zan Tao: Historical Evolution of Türkiye and Eurasian Geopolitics". Institute of International and Strategic Studies. Peking University. 19 October 2022. Retrieved 23 May 2025.
• Shih, Chih-yu (2013). "Global Asian: China as Position between Host and Home". Sinicizing International Relations. New York: Palgrave Macmillan US. pp. 153–173. doi:10.1057/9781137289452_10. ISBN 978-1-349-45016-9.

While the term is definitely niche, I think it is sufficiently notable given its use across this many contexts and regions. ViridianPenguin🐧 (💬) 03:14, 24 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 06:38, 31 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 14:15, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Mangoe (talk) 14:44, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• leaning delete I don't have the time or the background to sort through all this but I note that (a) the jargon level is extremely high in this to the point of tempting a diagnosis of deliberate obfuscation, (b) few of the works noted above appear to use it as a term, and (c) it really ought to be possible to say "no, environmental factors aren't entirely determining" without having to make a school of it or for that matter to run on so. Mangoe (talk) 14:55, 7 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One final attempt to reach quorum.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, asilvering (talk) 04:00, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep based on sources found above, but for all that is holy, would an expert please clean the article up. Nom is correct that much of the article appears to be OR and/or SYNTH, such as the closing "future directions" section (which is just three examples of topics loosely connected to geographic politics, not at all to "geocivilization" as a specific field), and the highly academic jargon doesn't help. There does seem to be a kernel of a real subject underneath all the frills, though. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 12:22, 15 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The sources presented barely describe the concept, so it would be entirely erroneous to consider them significant coverage. They are also primary, and not secondary sources, as required by the notability guidelines. Reliability is also questionable, of the first two, one is a conference proceedings in a preprint repository, that has no indication of being reputable, and the second, ESJ, is a known predatory journal. The latter three appear to be on different concepts entirely, though whether they are or not might be more obvious if the sources, you know, actually describe the concept directly and in-detail. I really can't see which part of GNG the concept allegedly meets. The "presumed" part? Or "multiple"? Given the sources are not secondary, nor addressing the topic directly and in-detail, all an expert would be able to do is produce more original research, which is the problem with the article in the first place. Please blow this up and do not start over. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:56, 16 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Alpha3031, largely. Far too much OR/SYNTH to even see what's going on, but it doesn't seem like there is very much. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 08:28, 17 June 2025 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Alpha3031 and Eddie891. 🟥⭐ ^{talk to me!} 04:45, 24 June 2025 (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.