Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radical planning

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 Merge with Theories of urban planning.

Radical planning (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)

This article is a theory within urban planning and urban theory. I recommend that it be merged with urban planning under one of the subsections. For the AFD reasoning, this article only has one source and that source is WP:UNDUE academic research. It is not notable enough to have a stand alone page at this time. The existing page has been around for some time, it at least needs some secondary sources to not be WP:PROFRINGE. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 16:16, 8 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions.  — FR⁺ 05:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. I'm not really familiar with urban planning / urban theory concept at all, so my ability to evaluate sources in the content field is poor. That said, Google Scholar returns a lot of hits on the topic, some of which (here, for example pdf link not so much working, but this article) seem to be quite independent of the originators of the term. Radical planning also appears to have been discussed here, in The Oxford Handbook of Urban Planning. I don't doubt that our current article has undue weight problems (and, in general, is just a lousy little stub). But I don't think this is a WP:FRINGE topic at all; fringe theories don't get section-level coverage in Oxford University Press books. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 13:40, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the link to the first source "Insurgent Planning" is broken. I personally would love to have the range of all planning theory on wikipedia, but WP:ISNOT a compendium of lesser or vague urban theory terms, nor is it a place for cutting edge ideas or practices (and there are many, trust me, urban planning is a field of acronyms, ideas, theories, practices many of which are not widely accepted). WP:OR applies to the first source. The second may be helpful but it is aspirational and based on WP:OR sources rather then being specifically encyclopedic. Randomeditor1000 (talk) 20:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really not interested in wading into this field of study. But I do think that an Oxford-published book cannot possibly constitute "original research" as we use that term in Wikipedia: a policy which prevents editors here from engaging in original research themselves. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford Publishing publishes a number of different books, that doesn't make them wholly devoid of original research. In fact if you read the passages, you would note that the authors base their specific phrasing not in general, but based on three very specific research papers. A summary of original research is just that, still research. Let me give a contrast when I go search the American Planning Association's website^[1] for radical planning I don't get anything related to this topic. Sure there are research papers that reference it but it is not generally as notable or used in common parlance like rational planning or synoptic planning.Randomeditor1000 (talk) 15:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural keep — if merging is an acceptable (or even preferred) outcome, then we shouldn't be discussing this here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:41, 15 May 2018 (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.