Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relational Dialectics

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 - Yomangani ^talk 17:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relational Dialectics[edit]

A POV essay of sorts, or something of a contextless bullet list. Certainly not an article, and would need a complete rewrite if it were to stay, so therefore delete. (|-- UlTiMuS 01:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Relational dialectics is a communication theory taught in interpersonal communication textbooks, it's notable. A very quick google search yields a page that lists 8 textbooks which include the concept here. The article is a badly-styled stub that's a bit low on context for people not at least briefly acquainted with the subject matter, but it's not a POV essay. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 01:29, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contingent on rewrite-- I agree with points from both comments thus far made. The article is more of an essay right now, with the first paragraph just a quote that is the thesis of the argument, not an objective introduction to the argument as a whole. Yet Google shows that this concept is notable, as tjstrf points out, so it should be fixed. Dar-Ape 01:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if it isn't rewritten. What's this nonsense about centrifugal forces? I don't see what the physics of rotating objects has to do with this article. eaolson 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The author means forces analogous to the physical forces. He uses the word centripetal as an analog for emotional forces tending towards unity and the word centrifugal for emotional forces tending towards divergence. Bejnar 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite It's just about impossible to understand, but I think that there's salvageable content. ςפקι Д Иτς ☺ ☻ 02:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (and rewrite and move to Relational dialectics) as a valid referencable theory --Steve 03:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've done a rewrite of the article to a decent descriptive stub. However, it was mostly reverted to the non-prose format. Here is my revision, which gives a basic description of the subject but not much more. If we could get the editor who is presently adding the lists of non-prose text to write the article in a proper style, I believe it could be quite good. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems as though the editor is developing the text in that form as a class project! [1] --Steve 03:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lol, I guess that explains why the format struck me as a reference outline when I looked at it. Well, I hope he doesn't get accused of plagarism... --tjstrf Now on editor review! 05:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As written it is incomprehensible psychobabble. Delete Allon Fambrizzi 04:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)Allon Fambrizzi[reply]
Delete unless completely rewritten - currently it's a bunch of nonsense. "dynamic interplay between unified oppositions"? Say what? Opabinia regalis 04:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Rewrite I agree with Steve and others. The article in its current form is worthless, but it provides a pointer to an important, if somewhat difficult, topic. Stammer 09:42, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless rewritten in plain English, and I can't imagine that ever happening. What we have here is word salad, an essentially meaningless string of abstract nouns. The "core concept" here is "the dynamic interplay between unified oppositions". Vague allusions to Yin and Yang and Heraclitus are brought in, apparently to give some kind of weight to this bollocks. Even if this stuff is referenced, this will always be borderline patent nonsense. - Smerdis of Tlön 15:46, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Philosophy for most people is always borderline, that is no reason for exclusion. Bejnar 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/Rewrite As it stands it's almost incomprehensible, but I've actually seen this taught so it *is* real and notable.--In ur base, killing ur dorfs 15:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per tjstrf Raffles mk 22:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I urge former nay sayers to read the newly partially rewritten article. Absolutely it needs more work, but it is a notable theory. The Dialectic has always been a difficult subject for many people to understand. Reading that article first may help editors to get a better grasp on exactly what Relational Dialectics is. Bejnar 18:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article, and its companion Action Assembly, gave me a headache. If it was indeed a class project, I hope class is over so it can be deleted. Wikipedia is not a place to work on class projects. Ugh. KrakatoaKatie 01:19, 7 November 2006 (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.