Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World development (2nd nomination)
- 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. Sandstein 23:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfDs for this article:
- World development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
This was originally debated at RFA1 with concerns about original research. I closed the debate as keep as there was some sourcing and it looked it a worthwhile subject on the face it. Having the nomination withdrawn halfway through didn't help either. Since then a user has quite correctly reminded me that original research includes synthesis and that this article is a classic of WP:SYN. I think this is a valid point and that my original close was likely to be incorrect. This is therefore relisted for further discussion as I feel uncomfortable going from keep to delete without further input from the community. FWIW I vote to delete Spartaz Humbug! 18:33, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I agree, it definitely seems to be an original synthesis of information. And for the record, isn't "world development" generally used to refer to socio-economic development? Calgary (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Very difficult to decide (and now I know about the Milky Way collision, heh), but it does seem to taking a single existing source as its basis, and undoubtedly (without reading every line, I concede) adding a sprinkling of original research around for good measure. doktorb wordsdeeds 18:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I'm the user Spartaz refers to. See my comments at AFD1 and DRV. Potatoswatter (talk) 21:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, by the same reasons as I presented in last discussion on this matter - mainly I think it is a better solution to remove those parts that are inappropriate rather than delete it all. However, if it still has to be completely removed, I suggest it to be redirected to International development. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:32, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]- Delete. Is clearly original synthesis. The facts used summarise complex issues to such a huge extent, that it becomes deceptive. Eg, they include facts about current extinction events, but none of the controversy. cherry-picking facts to synthesise is OR.Yobmod (talk) 12:47, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. All right, delete it if you want to. I was interested in getting the big picture of what is really going on in the universe when I wrote it, but it seems nobody else is interested enough in the subject to contribute further to it. Every further "contribution" to it are discussion entries like these ones rather than to the article itself. So, practically, it is a waste of time. So delete it, and everybody may go back to subjects that really interest people, like canine reproduction. Mikael Häggström (talk) 05:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Lol, we mean no offense but the key word here is "getting." It might seem boring but WP is restricted to rehashing information from existing sources, with creativity treated as a Bad Thing. For reading, you might try Big History, universal history, timeline of environmental events, and such (although the last one is somewhat synthesis-by-exclusion). For writing, surely there's another Internet collaboration you could move this article over to. The idea isn't a problem, it's just unfinished and original. The notion of extrapolating known trends is clearly not your invention, but it's not clear anyone has found (or claimed to find) links between all your different levels of development. Such links could unify this topic. In any case, English tends to use the word "universe," not "world," when referring to concepts of grand unification. Potatoswatter (talk) 12:17, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- With "getting" I mainly meant to come back and find a collaboration with everybody contributing with information and sources to what is going on in the universe (universal development might have been a better article name if it wouldn't be deleted). However, this will obviously not be the case in WP, and, since I'm not interested in what has been going on but probably isn't going on any longer (history), it's another reason to why I left the project a month ago. I don't really know why I've still frequented this article - it was futile, and so I find continuing writing this entry. So, to cite Sam Hocevar's public licence: Do What The F* You Want To. Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:16, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seems like a disambiguation page with real content. Based on that, weak keep. But definitely do not merge with international development. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:43, 28 June 2008 (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.