Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Human development theory

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 merge to Human development (humanity). Black Kite (talk) 00:28, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Human development theory

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

Quoted, I get about 150 GHits for this. I see no evidence it's considered important beyond its original proponents. Guy (Help!) 17:27, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Sen's work in this area is highly influential, and I think is suitable as an article. I'd say that if it were deleted, a redirect could go to Capability approach, however, my understanding is that human development theory is a bit more broad. If the AfD is still open when I finish, I'll post an update when I've contributed a bit. Smmurphy^(Talk) 02:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JzG:: I added a history section as an attempt to show how this article is different from the CA and the Human Development Index articles, as well as some more fixes. I'll do some copy editing, but let me know what you think/what could be better developed. Smmurphy^(Talk) 19:29, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:04, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - unless someone fixes this soon, right now it's a mess of little more than a mash-up of original research without any reliable online sources to verify it is notable. Bearian (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC) P.S. Smmurphy is on the right track, but I'd like to see more. Bearian (talk) 14:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human development (humanity) - I couldn't really find anything to back up the "Theory" section or the focus on ecological economics approaches that existed when I first saw the page. The first paragraph could be roughly sourced to the Welzel article, so I added that article as a source rather than tagging the entire section with citation needed. I've cut the section as OR, though. What is left is basically the same as Human development (humanity). Both Human development theory and Human development (humanity) are very old articles. Human development (humanity) started as a page about HDI and still focuses on that, which I think is the right place to start as a nod to Sen and Ul Haq's fundamental role in making this a subject. However, while Human development (humanity) includes discussion of Nussbaum, it skips Max-Neef and skips anthropological/sociological and feminist approaches. Smmurphy^(Talk) 17:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Winged Blades^Godric 13:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2017 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:33, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:04, 4 April 2017 (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.