Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interactive communication

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. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interactive communication (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

The concept may be notable, but what we have is an unreferenced OR mess in needs of WP:TNT (footnote to dead site that doesn't look very reliable, two ELs that are no better). BEFORE as noted shows that this term is used but in various different contexts, and what we have here is just terrible (including a section on "History of interactivity", which is NOT the topic of this article). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
• Draftify Agree with TNT, it should not be in mainspace but the topic is easily notable. This is arguably a broad concept article, it covers many areas in technology such as robotics [1], business [2], coding theory [3][4] and information technology more broadly [5]. I'm not convinced it is a topic in social science, though. Darcyisverycute (talk) 14:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @Darcyisverycute My field is related to communication studies, which is social science... you are right this is a broad concept, what I fear is that it is such a broad term that it has many definitions in many fields and is effectively meaningless. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:05, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:23, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: this reads like OR about a poorly sourced neologism. Owen× ☎ 23:45, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This goes beyond "broad concept article" and into the realm of blending together things that vaguely sound related. Draftification would just be delayed deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 17:23, 8 January 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.