Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Developing Leadership Capacities Through Action Inquiry

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 `'mikka (t) 04:45, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Developing Leadership Capacities Through Action Inquiry

Appears to be original research, and/or an excuse for a link to the commercial leadership-seminar provider mentioned in the External Links section, [1]. NawlinWiki 14:03, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Consider including Developmental Action Inquiry in the deletion - it's the same thing, more or less. Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. Personally, I can't make heads or tails of it. What the heck is an "action logic" supposed to be anyway? Zetawoof^(ζ) 04:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

• I would like to see this article retained. It is a useful summary of some significant issues for leadership development.147.56.247.28 20:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)Richards (User's only edit is to this AfD discussion)

• Keep but Rename to just "Action Inquiry". It's sourced, so it doesn't appear to be original research, rather a sysnopsis of Tolbert's work. It does seem to be a particulary dense way of saying bland and obvious things, but I'm not congizant enough of the field to know if this is so. It doesn't appear that "Action Inquiry" is just Tolbert's brand name for his particular theories, as there are 42,000 Google hits for the term. Herostratus 23:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

• Weak Keep, rename to Action Inquiry. For context, see Action research. Torbert is a prof at Boston College, I think this is actually legit stuff, but someone desperately needs to translate this out of management/social science-speak, if that is possible. --Brianyoumans 05:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete In its current state it doesn't appear to be anything readable for the encyclopedia ⇒ SWATJester ^Ready Aim _Fire! 08:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Vehement delete as complete bollocks. Vague, vacuous, abstract prose like Action research not only adds to general knowledge, but also plays a role in people's and organizations' development. People and organizations developing to later action logics become capable of supporting personal and organizational transformations in others has a tendency to make my blood boil. This article is nothing but a tissue of vague ideas polysyllablized for extra impressiveness. - Smerdis of Tlön 17:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Swat and Smerdis, in what must be the first instance of my opposing anything composed of (gratuitously) polysyllabic words; if the work of Tolbert, per Herostratus, is notable (as likely it is), I'd think that a rename per Brian and Hero should be in order, but I don't think there to be anything salvagable here, such that a better disposition might be to list the topic at WP:RA, with a note to the effect that the text of the deleted article will be userfied for anyone who undertakes to write an article apropos of the topic. Joe 00:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Not an encyclopedic article. Zaxem 02:27, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Thoroughly POV piece that fails to analyse what it purports to describe. BTLizard 09:58, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Delete A particularly egregious example of business-writing gobbledygook. Robertissimo 13:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and merge with Developmental Action Inquiry under Action Inquiry. I have removed the advert link. The bigger question is what is the copyright status of the text and tables? That, though, is not for this AfD. It is obviously sourced and though this sort of stuff makes my head spin it does have encyclopaedic content and I don't see any reason to delete. TerriersFan 02:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
• KEEP. Would be my suggestion/two-cents. I've added some preamble to give the piece some context. The article is distinct from published articles (I'm doing my PhD on this stuff) so is OK copyright-wise. I agree that some of the sentences are vague and (dare I say it) vacuous- but the entry is, after all trying to summarise a rich theory into a page or so. Hence unless you (say) read the HBR article (2005) by Torbert that's referenced, trying to 'get' the theory based on this entry alone won't be possible. I'd suggest that quantum physics is also gobbledygook when inferred from encyclopedic entries.70.59.17.138 Roger S.
  • Hmmm I think Roger S.'s comment is worth a lot more than two cents, I hope the closing admin will give it considerable weight, as Roger S. seems to actually know what this is about. Herostratus 06:56, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
    • It's kind of disturbing, really, that I'm able to extract more meaning from that introduction than from the rest of the article combined. If Roger S. is willing and able to rewrite the rest of the article in this manner, then I'd wholeheartedly vote to keep the result (although it may belong at a more sensible title as well). Zetawoof^(ζ) 07:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

 AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
 Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Herostratus 20:18, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

• Delete nonnotable essay. Mukadderat 00:09, 15 September 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.