Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Context theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 and redirect to Environmental planning. Its unsourced OR so the merge argument isnt a winner Spartaz Humbug! 04:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a theory within environmental planning but not one that is of specific notability. I propose that this article should be deleted or at a minimum merged with Environmental planning as it doesn't appear to have significant encyclopedic information. There are currently no references. When I search for context theory I get results relating to education and psychology. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:08, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MT TrainTalk 15:54, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect per nom, leaning very weak keep - I think the article's original purpose may be justified, but I agree that alot of the content at present isn't suitable (it's really just opinions, some uncited and in some cases with questionable relevance). I'd wonder if the article, if kept, would benefit from a name change as the "context theory" naming may itself be OR/invented, or at the very best, not necessarily a term that has caught on with any degree of notability. I think the current content can be easily condensed and merged into Environmental planning, where it's perhaps better suited. Bungle (talkcontribs) 22:00, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, an essay full of OR, the article has been around since 2006 with 40 or so edits and has never been referenced, google returns what you'd expect from such a vague name - everything but environmental planning. Szzuk (talk) 16:10, 24 April 2018 (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.