Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Teamwork

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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Teamwork

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

Pure original research. Delete. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 22:39, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Needs to be rewritten which I'm not sure qualifies as a delete. It's a definite part of Leadership Team management etc. Redirect to Organizational psychology if it cant be rescued.--Savonneux (talk) 22:57, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- A redirect to Organizational psychology sounds like a good idea. Horselover Frost (talk · edits) 01:12, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It figures that Wikipedia would try to delete this article - the teamwork in this place is dysfunctional. Anyway, I have knocked this back to a stub and provided a citation to a source which shows how to write an encyclopaedic article about this topic. It's mysterious that this article could exist for over five years without anyone managing to do something so simple. Please see Wikipedia:Competence is required. Editors who cannot manage such elementary tasks should please leave the project. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or transwiki to wikitionary, where this might belong. - MrOllie (talk) 15:41, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are hordes of books written about teamwork. I see nothing wrong with the old version of this article [1]. Anything is better than the "we had to invent teamwork to hunt woolly mammoths" nonsense that is there now. Dream Focus 23:11, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDEF. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That policy explains at length that size if not an issue and that we should not oppose encyclopedic stubs on this ground. Per WP:VAGUEWAVE, please explain how this article fails that policy as just pointing to the policy is not sufficient. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Teamwork and teambuilding are highly searched for terms on the web. Just because the WP content to date on this topic is inadequate doesn't mean that the article should be deleted. Improve it instead. -- Jtneill - Talk 12:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to team. Can't see these concepts as having really different content, and if they did then we would have a fork. Arskwad (talk) 06:54, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this draft has more and better sources than the team article. Development of these and related articles such as collaboration and cooperation is best discussed outside the narrow scope of AFD which is purely to empower an administrator to use the delete function. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:07, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an idea: Move Teamwork (disambiguation) to here. I almost voted weak keep because I didn't want the article to have absolutely nothing about the definition of teamwork, but that's covered on Teamwork (disambiguation). I think that teamwork should be elaborated more on, say, Wikibooks. Sorafune +1 23:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If a topic is notable enough to write a book about it — and there are already over 700 books about teamwork — then why wouldn't we have a summary article about the topic here? Please provide a policy-based reason. Colonel Warden (talk) 06:45, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep- Keep per WP:COMMONSENSE. It's clear by this nomination where wikipedia is heading...Smallman12q (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a bit more difficult to write on than other topics, but very clearly notable. There are literally thousands of books and papers on this subject from an industrial and organizational psychology standpoint. Akirn (talk) previously User:Icewedge 22:35, 15 May 2010 (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.