Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Virtual Team Dynamics

Virtual Team Dynamics

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Very questionably notable neologism. Beyond that, the page is riddled with WP:TONE, WP:NPOV, WP:OR and close paraphrasing issues that would require WP:TNT to fix. I attempted to CSD it for G12, but the CSD was removed by an ip editor.

Further the multiple WP:SPA accounts editing this page makes WP:COATRACK and WP:UPE concerns very probable per WP:QUACK. Sulfurboy (talk) 09:17, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining in detail the issues you see in the article, as well as aspiring to keep the content quality up to WP standards. As one of the article's main editors and indeed as a new editor, I recognize the issue of WP:SPA and one instance of WP:NOR in the last section.

In my opinion, it is justified to have concerns about neologism, WP:COATRACK, WP:NPOV and a review of the article by an expert of the field would bring clarity/justification to the issues. I contest that these are a case of WP:QUACK. Furthermore, I contest that the article has major issues on WP:TONE although of course there is some room for improvement.

I contest the claim of WP:UPE because it is not the case. I also objected to CSD for G12 based on points made in the article's talk page. To summarize it, the source appearing with a high match on Earwig is already cited extensively, while another source had a high match because it also used the previous source. Therefore I genuinely do not understand if there is a real problem here. If, despite these concerns, there are still copyright problems, please WP:AGFC and explain what it is.

As you can see, we are new editors and we have spent weeks on this article. While I can only guess what kind of new editors you deal with on a daily basis, please consider WP:AGF over WP:QUACK and thank you for offering to discuss the issues rather than rushing to deletion. All points considered, I strongly protest to a need for deletion or WP:TNT. My vote would be to draftify the article and resubmit it into the AfC process.

Speaking of AfC, originally I had moved the draft to the mainspace myself after reaching the understanding that it is fine for an autoconfirmed user to do so, based on what I read on pages about AfC and user permissions. If this understanding is wrong, please also WP:AGF and be assured that we will let the article sit as draft in the AfC process for as long as it needs and undergo further improvements, based on constructive feedback, until senior reviewers find it fit for publishing.

--Cosmonought (talk) 10:52, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]