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The result was nomination withdrawn. MER-C 08:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community of practice (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Another incoherent article created by Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs). Other users have improved the article somewhat, but I still don't see its value for Wikipedia. See also: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific Community of Practice Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scientific value Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meaning (scientific) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Stevenson-Perez (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • I retract my AfD nomination, and change my vote to keep -- Chris 73 | Talk 02:15, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. The article actually predates Stevenson-Perez and appears to have sociological notability, though even the pre-Stevenson-Perez version needed a severe rewrite. -- TedFrank 01:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, my mistake, the article history was actually longer than I thought -- Chris 73 | Talk 01:20, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per TedFrank. Despite Stevenson-Perez's nonsense, there is a verifiable and noteworthy concept here which deserves to be properly documented. I don't envy anyone the task of cleaning this mess up, but even if it has to be chopped down to near-stub, some of this does deserve to be kept. Pete.Hurd 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep article quality is never a valid argument for deletion. Delete those that can NEVER be improved to meet standards. Edit and improve the others. This is in the latter group. Jerry 02:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This looks to be an understandable overreaction to the recent Stevenson-Perez activity, but as noted there seems to be a firm "Community of Practice" concept out there. I'd recommend reverting to a pre-SP, and leave the "cleanup" and "Expert needed" tags in hopes someone can improve it to a reliable overview article. - David Oberst 02:09, 18 March 2007 (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.