Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developmental Action Inquiry

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. Tyrenius 16:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

del yet another promotion by Zhumaf (talk · contribs) of theories of a Torbert, W.. Another similar article was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developing Leadership Capacities Through Action Inquiry. Both look like original research, in the meaning of the exposition of a theory of some author. Mukadderat 04:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As with the previously deleted article, this one seems to be original research and unverified.--TBCTaLk?!? 05:03, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. My buzzword meter just overheated and melted. eaolson 05:06, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• G4 as reposted content to the Wikipedia. Tracker/TTV (myTalk|myWork|myInbox) 05:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It appears that key articles (e.g. the Torbert article) are self-published and hence fail to meet WP:RS, hence article fails to meet WP:OR, Article appears to contain enthusiastic claims and fails to soberly assess notability or validity of theory or to provide any critical views, hence seems to fail soapbox. Also agree with eaolson: This article is contains so many buzzwords that it isn't clear to me that it meets the requirement that English Wikipedia articles be written in English. Not clear it conveys to an English-speaking reader what its subject is really about. --Shirahadasha 17:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - whether or not you agree with this approach it is an entirely respectable theory. For example, see here for an independent review of the theory with a range of references. If someone wants to find out about the theory then they may turn to Wikipedia for an objective review and would be rightly disappointed not to find it. If it is considered that this article is too POV then the answer is to put in balancing views not to delete - an AfD is not a cleanup crew. TerriersFan 23:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please allow me to respectfully opbject: the "entirely respectable theory" is Action research (reviewed in your link), which is branched in wikipedia into Action Science, Participatory action research, Cooperative inquiry by the same user:Zhumaf, who is no longer present to defend his essays. All of them look like "brand names" of particular authors, who, for obvious reasons, do not agree on the term (each wants glory for him, naturally). I have serious doubts in some other articles of the above list, but this one was the most evident candidate for deletion. Mukadderat 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, user:Zhumaf got 3 or four essays already deleted independently , if you inspect red links in some of his abandoned contributions. Mukadderat 16:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • As a corroporation of my POV above, a minute ago, while browsing web, I noticed the comment by a David Tripp about action research: "makes the field appear chaotic, ill conceived, undisciplined and very suspect to many outsiders" ... and ... "It is interesting that the difficulties mentioned above do not seem to prevent everyone else from inventing their own, or supporting particular definitions of others. " [1]. The essays of Zhumaf hardly bring order into this chaos. Clearly, the overall topic is improtant, but it seems the research is novel (or, rather, re-emerging from old roots), and encyclopedia article must start with reputable, published overviews, rather than from individual books of proponents, each of which pushes his own right. There are thousands of books on theory of management, planning, job hunthing and other advise. Which are notable can decide only independent peer review, but not authors of these books (and surely not wikipedians who retell these books in their words). Mukadderat 16:49, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Last but not the least, I see some comments to the point that "action inquiry" is a new buzzword for the process of planning: "The idea of deliberately seeking and analysing information is essential to all action inquiry, which is exactly data acquisition component of planning. Mukadderat 16:59, 18 September 2006 (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.