Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Social disorganization 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 Draftify‎. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:39, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Social disorganization 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)

Not structured like an encyclopedic article, and while this topic might be notable, this appears to be a case where I would just WP:TNT and start over. Almost no inline citations, a bit of possible WP:SYNTH, and WP:MOS violations all over. Best to reduce to a stub, draftify, or delete. Awesome Aasim 22:33, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another interesting idea but poorly organized. Can we rescue this one? Bearian (talk) 02:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to allow interested editors to improve. Right now, it fails the WP:NOT test of WP:GNG but it seems like other participants see value in rescuing. Dclemens1971 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is a fundamental component of criminological theory (I am a theoretical criminologist), but I agree the page needs work. This is my first time posting, but I'm happpy to figure out the process and contribute, with appropriate citations and modern-day applications. Rebekahgz (talk) 19:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:14, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:09, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but improve. The article seems failed WP:NOTTEXTBOOK, it pushes away unprepared users. But the theory itself is relevant to everyday life, with RS such as this one and skillful writing, it could be a very interesting piece. I’m not against the suggestion of WP:TNT, though. Nihonjinatny (talk) 21:07, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify to give editors time to work on it. It seems notable. Ben Azura (talk) 08:00, 28 August 2024 (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.