Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community development planning

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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Community development planning

Community development planning (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 has one source, but the term 'community development' and 'urban planning' are at times synonymous professional practices. As it is I propose this one be deleted and redirected to urban planning. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:22, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:19, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 16:42, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Keep From a perusal of GBooks and GScholar sources, e.g., The Routledge Handbook of Community Development and Development Planning Concepts and Tools for Planners, Managers and Facilitators, community development planning is a real topic with plenty of sourcing to meet notability per WP:GNG. It might refer to the development of communities or, in the sense used in the article and the Routledge book, community stakeholder engagement in the development process. While there is overlap, it doesn't seem synonymous with urban planning, as such projects could be very local or rural in scope. A notable topic that looks different than urban planning suggests keeping the article. --Mark viking (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The Rutledge book does not define community development planning in fact it references it 3 times within the text but doesn't even address: what IT is?. For that matter the terms community development and urban/city/urban and regional planning are synonymous in the United States because they employ the same professionals and generally share the same concepts. In general, an urban planner (which is not specific to urban settings they also plan in rural, regional or other settings) does community development. They do so through public engagement, this confusion is part and parcel why a nomination for deletion should exist. With respect to this nomination, it could also be merged with the article Theories of urban planning. As it today it's very stub like. By the way, Reidar Dale is Associate Professor of Urban Planning and Management at the Asian Institute of Technology, Bangkok and is probably not the only authority on this subject. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:19, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• Delete per nomination. Even the (sole) source provided in the text uses another term: "Local Government Planning". The subject is typical of phrases and expressions we use quite often; then, some people start to think the expressions possess Wikinotability. At best, redirect this to "urban planning" or something similar. -The Gnome (talk) 13:55, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I am one government planner with two editions on hand of the "Green Book", the authoritative of which the first edition appeared in 1941. Each edition of the reference was published for the Institute for Training in Municipal Administration by the International City Managers' Association, along with sister volumes on public municipal financing. It is authoritative and has broadly collected the state of knowledge in the field of urban planning. It uniquely provides the basis of most American planning education programs. The fourth edition, 1968, devoted its eleventh chapter to the third of three special approaches to urban planning, which were Ch. 9, City Design and City Appearance, Ch. 10 Quantitative Methods in Urban Planning, and Ch. 11 Social Welfare Planning. It correctly identified the tensions between traditional administrative or comprehensive "rightists" and the "leftwing" social and activist planners, which today generally cooperate to help balance the various conflicts between social equity, economic development, environmental protection and security/safety provisioning which triangulate sustainable communities between them. The methodologies in wide use today which support bottom-up community-driven planning as fact-driven expedience or "muddling through", rather than the former physically deterministic, principles and practices were identified as adjustments undergoing change in the 1968 fourth edition of the Green Book. This was of course just before the establishment of the US Department of Housing and Urban Development with its focus on formula-driven entitlement block grants to local and state governments under the broad national objective to assist areas suffering lagging tax bases with majority occupants who experienced incomes at or below 80% of the area median. The youthful field of community development was established in the early 1970s with great enthusiasm, and like any new field after forty years has substantially professionalized. The Office of Community Planning and Development (HUD CPD) was launched by this reform and maintains oversight of the U.S. program to this day. Community planning, community development, and combinations of these have been sited within local and state governments across the United States now for over forty years. The discipline supports programs as diverse as meals-on-wheels to seniors and disabled persons, establishing service to populations underserved by road, bridge, water, sewer, recreational, educational, transit and protective services infrastructure, stimulating economic development within job-distressed areas and populations, working to sustain housing affordability and to humanely reduce homelessness, as well as directly rehabilitating and indirectly stimulating both private and public housing with reasonable transportation costs and options, and providing further essential nexxus to historic preservation, archaeological studies, native tribal interests, fair housing testing and enforcement, special needs supports for the mentally ill, AIDS sufferers, and sheltering women and children from abuse, enhancing support of public sanitation and health, libraries and community parks and recreation facilities and police and fire services, and lessening environmental impacts upon and from the human population and natural flows which variously sustain and threaten it. The endeavor to reduce dependency and increase self- and social-support, to increase lifetime learning and income of individuals, to reduce mortality and morbidity, to engage the less able and the aged as useful social interactors, to encourage widespread entrepreneurship, to provide sufficient monetary and psychological support for those who cannot provide for themselves, to improve both effective and economical social services, and to enlarge the scope of individual and small-group self-determination in decision-making and local actions all date back at least to . If "community planning" seems to some only a Wikinotable buzzword, it is one with a long pedigree, with a considerable number of urban and planning theorists and practitioners who range from libertarian to communitarian but who inform and implement within the central political decisions of sitting powers, and with very many billions of dollars of prior and future public expenditure riding upon it. It deserves a wide section within any wiki project concerning public planning and development. I am open to where the Wiki community wishes this topic to reside, but in no way do I wish to delete the subject. Thank you kindly, Paulsuckow (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2018 (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 the work appearing this page.