Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intelligent disobedience

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 keep. (non-admin closure) Tim Song (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligent disobedience

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

Made up some day, or some combination. Should be CSD, but its not. 7 day deliberation. Shadowjams (talk) 12:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

y is this bad? seems what i do for a living. sry. don't get this.

Although the article itself is too short and not very well written, and the phenomenon of disobedient guide dogs probably does not merit its own article, there are many references on the web, over a period of several years, to intelligent disobedience as it relates to corporate culture and management styles. It would be better to expand the article, rather than deleting it. Peter Chastain (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i tried to clean it up. - Fawn —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forest Fawn (talk • contribs) 14:00, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article is in poor state right now, and the one source listed is a blog, but the term has a lot of hits on google. Topic meets WP:N; article, however, needs lots of work. Angryapathy (talk) 16:31, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or maybe incubate, there seems to be potential for an encyclopedic article on this subject. Cassandra 73 (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I think it just passes the notability guideline. Article needs work and expansion, but these can be done, as I believe the sources exist. I would do it myself, but I'm not very good at that sort of thing, Lord Spongefrog, (Talk to me, or I'll eat your liver!) 21:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the word may be used more with organizations and training than with dog obedience. agree it should be rewritten, but this article as it stands doesnt show notability, and could be deleted safely. im not sure if incubation or userfication is appropriate, and i also dont know how successful those moves are, but if they tend to create better articles, id say do that, esp. if people step forward to help. (i cant right now).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 23:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would support userfication or a merge to Assistance dog (which is the main article on the topic), but there simply is not enough for this topic to be individually notable. That's demonstrated even better by the lack of reliable sources. Shadowjams (talk) 04:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm somewhat shocked to see this nomination. What insensitive rubbish to claim it was "made up some day", as the nominator claims. The article need tidying up, and may be difficult to source appropriately, but anyone with any experience with guide dogs knows this is a highly relevant entry for Wikipedia, and has the potential to be developed into an interesting article. --Geronimo20 (talk) 12:12, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you talking about the three references added since I nomed it? Or the comms above that recommend its merge. The fact is, the guide dog information would be substantially more useful in an article that covered the whole topic, and that built on that already "interesting article", rather than some offshoot that had some existential potential that nobody else here had the motivation to actually demonstrate. Shadowjams (talk) 12:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per multiple reliable sources now added to the article. I wouldn't necessarily object to a redirect and merge as Shadowjams outlined above, but since the concept seems to be discussed in multiple reliable sources I'd personally prefer it have it's own article. It would be nice if it could be expanded though, it's a pretty interesting topic. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 06:04, 16 November 2009 (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.