Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Root definition

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 redirect to Soft systems, as the content is already there. Mangojuice^talk 19:02, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Root definition

Tagged for speedy as "non-notable neologism" which os probably accurate but not a valid speedy criterion. Just zis Guy you know? 12:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete By creating such a definition --Porqin 12:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• I recommend looking at Soft systems#Sources. That this concept has been recently coined does not imply that it has not been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works. Uncle G 13:18, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Weak delete. Self-referential neologism. (Or, perhaps WP:NFT made up in a semantics class?) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:00, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
• Am adding more URLs to the article to try to indicate that this isn't just something that was made up by me! Wrightdn 11:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Please fill in the missing fields. Also please note that citing sources from the outset usually avoids having one's articles nominated for deletion. Uncle G 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
• Given the cited sources, which are from multiple authors and which explain what a root definition is, it appears that this concept is verifiable and not original research. Keep. Uncle G 13:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Mailer Diablo 17:21, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Soft systems, as it is not much more than a dict def and only makes sense in that context. -- Koffieyahoo 01:29, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Soft systems. As noted above, it makes no sense to give it it's own article, whilst with soft systems it is almost important enough to warrant a catagory to itself. LinaMishima 20:50, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Would be happy to see this merged with SSM material since it is a component of that methodology. The only reason this was created as a new entry was because the SSM page does not expand on any of the methodology's components (e.g. system dynamics, rich pictures, root definitions, etc.). They are all assigned their own pages elsewhere (hence the creation of a new page). --Wrightdn 11:39, 8 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.