Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cynefin

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. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 17:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cynefin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Majority of editors were for deletion or redirect in a newly created article (see talk page). No work has been done since the redirect was opposed by one editor back in January --Snowded ^TALK 06:37, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @Snowded: From your comment, it seems like you meant to nominate Cynefin at articles for deletion. Is that correct? — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 06:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - easiest all round I think ----Snowded ^TALK 09:47, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. — Godsy ^(TALK_CONT) 10:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. NewYorkActuary (talk) 23:13, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. This was created as part of a dispute. It's a dictionary definition with a side order of word salad, e.g. "In Welsh words can reflect the lived experiences of the landscape". SarahSV ^(talk) 05:21, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Hmmm, so @snowded suggested to delete the Cynefin page. Seems to me a clear breach of his Conflict of Interest on Cynefin model. Furthermore I see no majority of editors that was for deletion. It seemed to be just one, maybe two. Something weird is going on here. And NO this was not created as part of a dispute. Where is the proof for that statement? There seems to be an urge to remove something that hasn't got a proper chance to grow due to all pressure from people that want it to vanish. No wonder other editors don't step in ..... Hvgard (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hvgard, your creation of Cynefin was a breach of WP:COI and WP:BLPCOI, and arguably a breach of WP:HARASS because of the continuing focus on Snowded. See the final warning about COI issued in 2015 by Jytdog. Also pinging Huon who commented there. SarahSV ^(talk) 14:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog? Isn't that the guy that was later and still banned from discussing WP:COI. I don't take that seriously. Sorry.Hvgard (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination and SarahSV (who has put a lot of work into the COI and PoV issues) ----Snowded ^TALK 09:35, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nomination and (especially)SarahSV's comment above.Llwyld (talk) 15:13, 18 April 2017 (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.