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 The current article may be a but ORish but there is clearly an article to build here and deleting it only means that we have to start from scratch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:23, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

World development[edit]

World development (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

As I wrote on the talk page: As far as I can tell, this article was created and maintained by only one editor, User:Mikael Häggström, and has no citations or external links beyond those confirming facts. The important thing that is missing is a confirmation of what the definition of World Development is, and that this is an accepted use of the term. "World Development" could be used to describe many things, and I can't find any similar use on Google (though admittedly I didn't look very hard), so as far as I can tell this is a topic that User:Mikael Häggström simply made up. That's not to say I don't think it's a good article -- it's well written and well cited, especially beyond the introduction, which I think is the most problematic area of the article, and I'd hate to see it be lost because of that. I'm just not sure this is an appropriate topic for Wikipedia. If multiple links were added to things that deal with this topic in a similar manner and confirm that the term "World Development" is used in this way by someone other than User:Mikael Häggström, this article would be much the better for it, but I can't find anything, and unless that happens, I really don't think this is appropriate for Wikipedia. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 19:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed my mind and am withdrawing this nomination (see below), but it's already got several delete votes on it, so I'm not sure what should be done about it. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Article has no quality, or importance. DeadmanUndertaker 19:15, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • No quality? This doesn't make much sense, considering the article... ffm 00:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: This may be better kept if it is moved into the project space, or transwikied to Wikinews. ffm 00:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Weak delete high quality article with plenty of WP:RS but the term itself seems to have been WP:MADEUP by the primary author. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 03:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep changing my recommendation per what Mikael Häggström has written below. ~ Ameliorate _{U T} @ 09:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, by the same reason as I created it. I admit I put those words together without using any source that has made so, but I don't see how that would be more original research than e.g. the article technology development - I found no confirmation on Google for that compund either. I find it frustrating that the whole article would fall just because of the definition of the term. So why not just state that the term has no strict definition/various definitions, but MAY be used as the astronomical developments etc, and MAY also include life and humanity etc. And, to the fact that I've been the main creator and maintainer of the article so far, I do welcome everybody to contribute to it, preferably in a more creative way than deleting it. And to "lack of importance" I strongly think global warming, poverty and ecomomic growth are important, and even if considering that their individual articles already exist in other places the overall picture of the development is justified. It tells a lot more than the development (disambiguation). And if it still must be removed from Wikipedia I too prefer a transwikification to Wikinews than a deletion. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it (tech devel) would be better titled Developments in technology and a similar name for this article. ffm 14:58, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It's just that "world development" is so general a term, and could be used to discuss an impossibly large number of topics, whereas "technology development" is a lot narrower; but I agree that the Technology development article has similar problems. Wikipedia isn't the place for defining new topic areas -- it's an encyclopedia, it's supposed to give information about already-existing topic areas. If someone out there said, "'World Development' means to this, this, this, this, and this" (and people agreed), then it would make sense to include that here. But that's not the case here. I agree, though, that this article should not be lost; it could be transwikified it to somewhere, or you could even publish it on your own site. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 02:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I think the vast scope of the subject rather justifies having an article on it, in order to present different scopes, and in a more readable version than a disambiguation page. Sure it may be renamed e.g. Development of the world, so there won't need to be any original research for the name of the article. Mikael Häggström (talk) 08:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as an unencyclopedic article with original research. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 04:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It may have some OR, but it also has WP:RS, so I don't think a complete deletion is the best choise.Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It is more like an essay putting different things together than an encyclopedia article. Borock (talk) 05:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I agree most of it may be found in other articles as well. However, it might take a long time to find it, and some knowledge would be completely lost in a deletion.Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Epitome of WP:OR. The name of the subject is natural history. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, according to that article "natural history" is an obsolete usage. So natural science instead, now that the scientific world has moved beyond thinking in terms of creating a history. Potatoswatter (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment: Again it may have some OR, but it also has WP:RS. Better remove only any OR than everything. Sure World development may be redirected to natural history once this one is moved to something else (like development of the world).Mikael Häggström (talk) 13:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Withdraw and move to "Development of the world": I wasn't really sure whether this should be AfD'd or not from the beginning, since it was a very well put-together and cited article except for the name. I think my biggest problem with the article was that the term "world development", while sounding like it might be a real term used by academics, just seemed to have been pulled out of thin air. Though "Development of the world", which the author proposed, isn't much different, it resolves that problem in my mind. -- BlastOButter42 ^See Hear _Speak 23:56, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think we should be considerign the notability of this topic. Off course the information included in the article is notable. But I would like to see secondary sources which justify all the various topics (astronomy, economics etc. ) being justified as a individual topic. Overall this feels like original research in the sense that it puts forward the editors views on what are important developments in the world. What mainly worries me is that there is no objective way of saying what should and should not be apart of this article (e.g should medical breakthroughs, emerging diseases be apart of the article?). In summary, I would like to see references for the introduction, if you want me to change my vote. Ziphon (^ALL_ears) 09:50, 11 June 2008 (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.