Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social-technical systems

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.  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  16:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Social-technical systems

Original research, unless sources are forthcoming (as per User:130.123.225.69). -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 02:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually I was the user who proposed deletion. 130.123.225.69 appears to be the original author. Gazpacho 18:51, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

• Keep I immediately found several academic papers published on this by doing a Google search, so it appears that it is notable and there is material to do a solid, verifiable article. JChap T/E 04:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete While a Google search will yield instance of this phrase, it's unclear whether it merit's it's own article (especially in the current muddled state). OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete It's meaningless jargon in its current state. If it's turned into an article I'll reconsider. Dlyons493 Talk 12:02, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep We must AGF. If we found the citations, we should put it up. Although the paragraph is complete jibberish, we could always just blank it and start from scratch.--Ed^{talk c E} 16:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. Per JChap. It just needs a rewrite. Lauren 23:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete for failing the basic WP:V, unsourced and undocumented. I agree the phrase exists and that the article needs a rewrite, and I have no problem with either. However, unless one of the keep noms are volunteering to bring the article up to snuff, I'd see this one gone and have it recreated later, hopefully in a better way. I'll also raise notability as an issue, since the phrase gets only 257 distinct Ghits. Tychocat 08:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks,  (aeropagitica)   (talk)  07:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Incoherent garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 15:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Delete as gibberish per Tychocat, this needs a complete rewrite if it needs an article at all. Sandstein 18:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Vacuous consultant-speak prose, contains nothing but glittering generalities and empty abstractions. - Smerdis of Tlön 19:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

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.