Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2014/February
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Procedural note. A newbie, Thereflector, wishes to make "a formal complaint", at Talk:Causal layered analysis. Since I !voted to delete or merge it, can an uninvolved sysop get involved, either to start a deletion review, respond, or merge the material? Bearian (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2014 (UTC)
ToBearian at (talk) - Thanks for your response. I'm not an administrator but I am a subject expert in futures studies [1]. We know that the existing article on CLA was mostly written by Sohail, and that as he developed the method that makes Wikipedia editors suspicious. We also appreciate that the existing article was written in an academic style that isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. But it's a really widely referenced method, and should have an entry on Wikipedia. What I think we'd like is to have the existing article put in a snadbox somewhere, to work on it as a community, and when we (and maybe some friendly editors) think it's up to scratch to put it back up. Is that possible? How would it work? Thereflector (talk) 22:27, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with Thereflector that it should be improved in a sandbox by those in the futures studies community who use or understand CLA. While no expert in futures studies I can volunteer my wikipedia skills as a long standing editor (and novice in the skills of CLA). I would like to point out that Causal layered analysis was relatively popular, especially for such an academic subject (it was viewed about 25 times a day). --DadaNeem (talk) 22:28, 23 February 2014 (UTC)