Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hybrid institutions and governance
- 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. Complex/Rational 22:44, 22 November 2025 (UTC)
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Hybrid institutions and governance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
This article does not clearly show that the topic is encyclopedic, and it is unclear if it would ever come to be more than an essay-like not very noteworthy article. The notability is questionable, and little interest to improve it has ever been displayed. BlockArranger (talk) 21:51, 15 November 2025 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. I am bad at usernames (talk · contribs) 01:27, 16 November 2025 (UTC)
- Comment as I am trying to come up with a decision, Hybrid organization also exists and seems to be affected with similar issues. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:00, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Well, it seems like it is a bit more established, but we should perhaps look into it as well. It seems like there is a lot of original research going on there; perhaps it should at least be trimmed to a significant extent. BlockArranger (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete Nominally, I do not think there is much grounds for deletion, but this is an awful article. I am trying to read it but half the time the link between the topic of the article and the actual content is obscure. For example, the section The designing of Dolly - A clone and a hybrid? is such a weird metaphorical mess where I don't know what the point of it is. This article seems like a WP:TNT situation. I would rather have a gap in knowledge briefly for an editor to write a better, more encyclopedic article on the topic than be stuck with this for another 14 years. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:09, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- You may have noted that the article specifically states that "the term hybrid institution is not yet well-established or clearly defined in academic literature". If you refer to WP:REFERS, articles are mostly about actual types of objects or phenomena rather than about terms themselves; thus, articles should not take a term and discuss what exactly it may refer to; but rather, discuss the thing that the title is presupposed to refer to, possibly with disambiguation available in the hatnote. Here, however, the article is not even clear on its topic. I think that if it is still the case that the term is not well-defined and that it is not established, I do not think we should include is as WP:NOTABLE unless the possibly ongoing debates about the term are themselves notable. BlockArranger (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think those issues are more the article being poorly written than the actual topic being bad. I'm not going to go through around forty scientific papers but I am going to assume at least three discuss the topic in detail (though it wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't even true), which means it should pass WP:GNG or should be merged with hybrid organization. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- The problem is, however, that this article seems to be broader in scope than the one you propose it to be merged into. However, I do admit that it is rather unclear as neither one is particularly well-written. BlockArranger (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- I think those issues are more the article being poorly written than the actual topic being bad. I'm not going to go through around forty scientific papers but I am going to assume at least three discuss the topic in detail (though it wouldn't surprise me if that wasn't even true), which means it should pass WP:GNG or should be merged with hybrid organization. ✶Quxyz✶ (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- You may have noted that the article specifically states that "the term hybrid institution is not yet well-established or clearly defined in academic literature". If you refer to WP:REFERS, articles are mostly about actual types of objects or phenomena rather than about terms themselves; thus, articles should not take a term and discuss what exactly it may refer to; but rather, discuss the thing that the title is presupposed to refer to, possibly with disambiguation available in the hatnote. Here, however, the article is not even clear on its topic. I think that if it is still the case that the term is not well-defined and that it is not established, I do not think we should include is as WP:NOTABLE unless the possibly ongoing debates about the term are themselves notable. BlockArranger (talk) 23:31, 18 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete This is an essay, not an encyclopedic article on a clearly identifiable topic. Neither the tone nor the content is remotely appropriate here. Reywas92Talk 01:00, 19 November 2025 (UTC)
- Delete As above, this is not an encyclopedia article but an essay that amounts to original research. It clearly states in the lede that this is not a settled topic, and then goes on as an academic article arguing all sides. Lamona (talk) 21:29, 22 November 2025 (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.