Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Collaborative Control 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 soft draftification‎ let's call it. This AFD suffers a bit from a lack of participation, that's why I am closing it as "soft draftification" instead of simply "draftification", although sending the page to draft space seems to be the budding consensus here. Just like a soft-deleted page can be recreated, this article can be moved back to mainspace if anyone objects. In that case, my close is not meant to prevent speedy renomination. $Salvio giuliano$ 06:50, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Collaborative Control Theory

[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)

I suspect this article is either original research or doesn't meet notability criteria (in addition to being too technical for most readers to understand).

Collaborative control as a general concept makes sense. But it's not clear to me that "CCT" as it is branded in this page is really a distinct concept that's widely recognized and clearly defined by the broader academic community. For example, the article states that there are 8 core principles, and goes on with very precise naming for them. However, when Googling some of these principles in conjunction (e.g., "Collaboration Requirement Planning" "e-Work Parallelism"), I find only a dozen of articles with very few citations. In general, while many articles talk about "collaborative control", but they don't seem to refer specifically to "CCT" as it is defined here.

I am not familiar with the area, so I would like the community's opinion on this. I would have no strong opinions if people think this article should be kept. 7804j (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Engineering and Computing. 7804j (talk) 18:24, 16 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify. This article seems to have major issues that should be addressed. I'm not an expert on the article's subject matter, but the WP:CONTEXT issues are the biggest problem IMO as I wasn't able to understand anything about the topic from reading it. Some possible COPYVIO and OR signs. Caleb Stanford (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Owen× ☎ 00:18, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - There appears to be a concept buried in here screaming and trying to get out from the weight of the unnecessarily verbose prose. See [1]. I'm not familiar with the consensus behind draftifying if the subject might be notable based on a few papers that cover it, but the article is poorly written. It is an orphan and has been flagged for being too technical, and has been ignored for 7 years. It has to be rewritten somehow to make it useful, or deleted. TheDeafWikipedian (talk) 02:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Left guide (talk) 01:09, 31 July 2025 (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.