Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social productivity

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:46, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Social productivity[edit]

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

Original research basically unchanged since 2006. It is weird that it was frequented by many to fix typos and links and other subuseful stuff, but nobody actually paid attention to its content. Lom Konkreta (talk) 19:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Clearly an essay. Unfortunately for this process, it does appear to be a notable term. See for example a paper by Wahrendorf and others on social productivity and the elderly, by Barnett on social productivity and the law and a definition on its use in social science. I suspect that is why it has survived and it probably needs a clean up rather than deletion. The approach delete and let somebody else recreate may not be the right one if the article is salvageable. Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently familiar with the topic to judge. AJHingston (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- "Unfortunately, I'm not sufficiently.." -- You nailed it. Who guarantees that this text is not a complete bullshit? And that is why it survived (virtually unchanged for 5 years): nobody knows and nobody cares. Lom Konkreta (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S. The exact same situation was with "Economic progress". Lom Konkreta (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete what seems to be an OR-laden, barely sourced essay. Kansan (talk) 02:41, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Logan _Talk ^{Contributions} 00:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the top and tail sections which seemed to be just dictionary-esqe definitions of the words; I hope that leaves just the core. But even there, it is needing significant cleanup - references for the assertions etc. Maybe it can be tidied and taken further from this kernel, but I suspect not, so weak delete. AllyD (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. & others, as well as WP:OR. While there is a list of references, none are cited in the text of the article, and it is far from clear how they substantiate the content. --JayJasper (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2011 (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.