Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interdependence

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 redirect to Systems theory. (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interdependence[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

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

An essay full of woolly original research by way of synthesis. (I noticed this during this old AfD and then forgot about it.) XOR'easter (talk) 01:25, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to the nomination Interconnectivity, for the same reasons. An article by that name was deleted in 2013, and judging by the comments there, it seems to have suffered from the same problems as this one. XOR'easter (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 02:16, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interdependence seems to be a notable topic judging by the sources in GBooks, and the fact that mutual dependence is obviously a valid topic. Therefore the correct approach would appear to be to fix the article, if necessary by stubifying it, per WP:SOFIXIT and WP:ATD. No comment on Interconnectivity, except that we also have Interconnection, which is certainly a valid article. James500 (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I see your WP:SOFIXIT and your WP:ATD and raise you WP:TNT. If I had thought fixing Interdependence was possible, I would have. Redirecting Interconnectivity to Interconnection would make sense. XOR'easter (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:02, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Interdependence to Systems theory, where it is dicussed as a core concept of systems. This is a concept that has applications in many fields. Forming a WP:DABCONCEPT article could be one approach to handling this with a minimum of synthesis. Until that is created, (with appropriate sources), systems theory is already a fairly reasonable broad concept article that has discusses interdependence as a core feature of all systems and has a proper summary-style approach to most of the kinds of systems discussed in the interdependence article. Until a proper article can be re-created, I think the redirect would be the most helpful approach for readers trying to understand such a broad concept as interdependence. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:24, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that two articles are nominated for deletion herein: Interdependence and Interconnectivity.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all. These are broad topics which naturally makes them difficult to do well but, per our editing policy, we should improve them rather than deleting them. They have massive notability as entire books are written about them. Andrew D. (talk) 18:31, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Andrew's standard advocacy for original research by citing WP:BROAD aside, if he isn't personally going to fix the article, he shouldn't be allowed prevent others from doing so by the appropriate means for an article with nothing worth keeping as is. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 20:37, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per above. I remember the "interconnectedness" AfD, which I described at the time as unscientific woo-woo. This essay is full of similar woo-woo and original research, plus a lot of vacuous management jargon. We're here to write an encyclopedia, not pacify shareholders with verbose platitudes. This is a hopeless case. Reyk _YO! 09:11, 4 October 2018 (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.