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. There is a consensus to Keep this article because the subject itself is notable. But there is concern about the current state of the article. Luckily, User:Ancheta Wis has been active on this article and I encourage other interested editor to contribute to improving it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Systems thinking[edit]

Systems thinking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

WP:SYNTH, this is a generic term, the only citation supporting the existence of this concept is a random government civil service exam study guide. - car chasm (talk) 05:18, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Previously added another citation from 1997. Therefore it's not OR. Also, why doesn't Newton's System of the World 1687 qualify? --Ancheta Wis   (talk | contribs) 05:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to be honest here - I have absolutely no idea why you think a primary source from the 17th century is an acceptable WP:RS for a page discussing a topic that originates in the 20th century. - car chasm (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a superficial article prepared by someone whose knowledge is restricted to one sub-field. There is no mention of Systems Biology, for example, a very active field of research for at least 30 years, and no mention of Henrik Kacser, Robert Rosen, Humberto Maturana, Walter Pitts, etc. There is also no mention of Systems chemistry, a topic I know little about, but which exists. Athel cb (talk) 11:27, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but rewrite: there is an extensive literature about systems thinking, but many of the article's references are not relevant to this subject. Jarble (talk) 17:20, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This paper from scholar looks promising, but it also says that that "However, as yet there is no commonly accepted definition or understanding of it." - so it seems that an article drawn from sources like this would discuss the use of the term, which appears to fall afoul of WP:NOTDICT. I'm unaware of any other policy that discusses what to do when various sources all use the same term to refer to different topics. - car chasm (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's from a predatory publisher. Not promising at all. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 21:14, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect or delete. This really seems like a "blue trucks" article: the fact that a bunch of people have used the phrase "systems thinking" to describe something doesn't mean that they were describing the same thing, or that there is a single thing for us to write an article about. Taking it at face value, the definition is so broad as to be vacuous: "looking at [the world] in terms of wholes and relationships"? Gee whiz.. as opposed to what? "Yesterday I went to a place where there was a grain of sand. There was also a second grain of sand. There was also a third grain of sand. There was also a fourth..." jp×g 18:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but fix. There is a thing (or set of things) that people refer to as "Systems thinking" (as with (and perhaps not entirely opposed to) "Design Thinking"). There is an entire domain of Systems Engineering, and General Systems Theory that can be drawn from. Wikipedia is a work in progress. dml (talk) 22:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist but are those editors advocating Keeping and fixing offering to do this themselves? And if you support the idea of Redirection, you have to supply a target article to consider redirecting to.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: systems thinking is clearly a topic worthy of a Wikipedia article with a large number of citations on the topic. For example, Systems Thinking, edited by Gerald Midgley, SAGE Publications; Systems Thinking Basics by Virginia Anderson and Lauren Johnson, Pegasus Communications; Monat & Gannon (2015), doi:10.5923/j.ajss.20150401.02; Systems thinking: Concepts and Notions by NJTA Kramer & J de Smit, Springer. Bondegezou (talk) 08:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Agree: an article under the title "Systems thinking" needs to be retained. Regardless of some ambiguity in the use of the term, there are important references to 'systems thinking' with explicitly described meaning. Peter Senge's book The Fifth Discipline is another example. See also Arnold and Wade A Definition of Systems Thinking: A Systems Approach. Matthew C. Clarke 04:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Poorly-written mess of an article, but systems thinking is a valid academic concept with influential and highly-cited papers in reliable journals (example, example). Clean up but don't delete. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:30, 27 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Systems engineering relies a lot on systems thinking and action. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 02:18, 28 June 2023 (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.