Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Communicating in small groups

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. Shimeru (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Communicating in small groups

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

The article gives advice on communicating in small groups, cited to a book on business communication. It may be appropriate for Wikihow, but is not encyclopedic. The page was prodded by DGG with the comment, "unencyclopedic tutorial". That prod tag was removed by an IP user with no other edits; no reason for opposing the prod was offered. Cnilep (talk) 14:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Cnilep (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is unencyclopedic. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 14:27, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:UNENCYC which explains that you must explain why the topic is unencyclopedic rather than just asserting this. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, an essay of original research, a "how-to" guide, a non-notable neologism to the extent that the title isn't self-explanatory; and in my opinion most importantly complete bollocks, and really, patent nonsense: an important skill today's highly group oriented environment. Individuals are expected to be able to work in teams and have the skills to cooperate with team members. As a team member, your success is measured by your ability to communicate with your team members, your boss and your peers. Ah. Today's environment is "highly group oriented", as opposed to, say, yesterday's? Wow, didn't know that. I think somebody may be pulling our leg. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, work groups tended to be more hierarchical and so communication would be a matter of doing what the foreman or boss said. Please see Team building, for example. Perhaps you have some foul-mouthed epithet for that too but the abundant sources demonstrate that it is the way of modern business. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It remains my opinion that where a text seems to have been improvised "by a mind gifted with sufficient leisure and vocabulary", and seems to have been written by the pound, what you have is "content that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." I will admit, American English contains a more precise technical term. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:25, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While the contribution is appreciated, it doesn't pass Wikipedia's rules against essays and how-to guides. I have no proof that this is taken from somewhere else, although I think that the article's author has been using this in presentations of some sort. It's filled with buzzphrases, not quite nonsense or bollocks, but we don't keep "how to" articles here. Mandsford (talk) 16:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our articles are all expected to be written in essay style - defining the topic and then expounding upon it. This article is no different - it just needs more work, being an early draft. Please see our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but there's a difference between writing an encyclopedia article in essay style, and writing an essay. The word "essay" can have different meanings, but if a person is advocating something (and how-to instructions or recommendations are a form of advocacy) it falls under WP#NOTESSAY as well as WP#HOWTO. As noted below, the topic is covered in small-group communication. Mandsford (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per per User:Ihcoyc: original research, a "how-to" guide, a non-notable neologism to the extent that the title isn't self-explanatory. The article might not be WP:CB, patent nonsense, but it is either an essay or OR or both and does not belong in this or any other encyclopedia.--Kudpung (talk) 01:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

None of the words making up the title is new and the phrase is clear, comprehensible and common, occuring in the titles of many works, as demonstrated below. The point about WP:NEO is thus completely refuted. Colonel Warden (talk) 09:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Small-group communication which is the same topic. That article is more advanced and shows the potential of the topic. The title of the version we have here is notable, appearing in the title of works such as Communicating in small groups: principles and practices, Communication in Small Groups: Theory, Process, Skills and In Mixed Company: Communicating in Small Groups and Teams Colonel Warden (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge/redirect as Colonel Warden suggested. Plenty of books about this concept, so its notable, but an article already existed for this. Dream Focus 15:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect. Unfortunately, 99% of the content does not pass WP:NOTHOWTO. Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 01:14, 8 April 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.