Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dark side of 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   delete. Aaron Brenneman (talk) 14:01, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Dark side of planning

 * – ( View AfD View log )
 * Moved to
 * – ( View AfD View log )

(1) Not often used in the literature (even the references given refer to various "Dark side of ..." concepts.) (2) Used for different concepts in the references given. This means the article should be a disambiguation page, even if a notable concept. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:50, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Per nomination, or merge to Planning. Anything has a "dark side:" kids' birthday parties, eating ice cream, vacations, sex, puppies, sunshine. Seems a content fork, though without much encyclopedic content despite the long list of references. Edison (talk) 15:30, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete I almost went with keep, the case for notability is well-presented. However thinking more about it I'm thinking that this is really a "criticism of planning" article.  The content should be covered in Planning itself. Kitfoxxe (talk) 16:04, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Nominator makes the strange claim that the phrase is not often used in literature.  Has the nominator taken a minute out of their day to check?  Obviously not, as the phrase is in wide use..  And, as the sources show, it is not used for "different concepts" in the references.  The dark side of planning theory has been described as "the primary critique of the communicative action paradigm" (see Jürgen Habermas' communicative action) by professor Neil Harris at Cardiff University.  Its proposed deletion from Wikipedia would therefore be a violation of our core policy of NPOV. Viriditas (talk) 02:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment. It may have been described as "the primary critique of the communicative action paradigm", but that doesn't match our article which you linked to it, so I removed the link.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please read and understand WP:SEEALSO. It matches the sources found in the literature.  As usual, your comments and reverts are off the wall. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry. It's absurd, but it seems to be in one of the references not actually yet in the article, so I suppose it's relevant.  The WP:BURDEN for referencing the inclusion is on you.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Don't be sorry. There is nothing absurd about linking to relevant Wikipedia articles supported by the sources.  Arthur, do you understand how see also sections work?  You were given the source above (Harris 2002). Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I said the link is absurd, although possibly supported by Harris 2002, which, however, is not listed in the article. If you would add the references you find to the reference section of the article, rather than writing text not supported by the existing references, it would be appreciated.  You might note also that Harris 2002 does not use the phrase "Dark side of planning", but " 'Dark side' of planning", keeping the scare quotes in place.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:47, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no such stipulation regarding the use of see also links, so please stop making stuff up. Your continued claim that "dark side of planning" is not the same thing as "dark side" of planning is pure nonsense. More to the point, Harris explicitly refers to Yiftachel & Flyvbjerg's theory in the source, so your claim that the 'dark side' of planning is different than the 'dark side of planning' has now been shown to be completely false.   It needs to be said that this is the same false, nonsensical claim you made on Talk:Planetary boundaries and the fact that you continue to make false claims about different concepts tells me that there is either something seriously wrong with your reading comprehension or there is a documented pattern of disruption where you appear to be creating disputes based on your personal disagreement with the ideas rather than on the facts.  Please stop this. Viriditas (talk) 08:28, 14 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Comment. I decline comment on the fact that V has ignored my actual claim of non-notability, as he has ignored my actual statements on most of the other topics where I have questioned the notability or his actions.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:20, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have addressed both of your claims, and I've provided evidence showing that you made them up. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed either of my claims. — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 03:27, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fully addressed with evidence above. Please stop making stuff up. Your canned, templated response of "not often used in the literature" and "used for different concepts" for everything you personally disagree with is getting tiring.  It's simply not true and isn't based on the facts. When a professor of planning clearly describes it as a "primary critique" it's time to change your opinion. Viriditas (talk) 03:30, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd appreciate it if you would stop lying. Many of the references added by the article creator referred to "Dark side of ..." (but not planning), and not all of the references which do refer to the "Dark side of planning" refer to the concept described.  It may be the case that there are a number of articles about the "Dark side of planning" which refer to this concept, but, I'm not going to check all 12 references (some without URLs) when the ones I can check do not support the article.  "Dark side of modernism" indeed.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from any further accusations of "lying" or continued personal attacks. You appear to be making baseless claims about references that you haven't even looked at in the first place.  You've been asked to actually read and look at the citations and do some research on the concept before commenting on it.  As I have shown above using only the Harris 2002 as one example, there is no difference between the theory referred to as the 'dark side' of planning and that of the 'dark side of planning'.  All of the sources on this topic refer explicitly to the ideas of Yiftachel & Flyvbjerg.  We are dealing with one concept, not two as you propose.  It would help, Arthur, if you would do the research before making your claims. Viriditas (talk) 08:32, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge to Planning. The sources and subsequent research by Viriditas clearly demonstrate that this is a valid concept. However, I see no benefit in this being in a standalone page. I think that it would be much better to incorporate the theory into the main page where it can be read in context. Bridgeplayer (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete Little used academic coinage. The vey article itself admits as much in the 2nd paragraph. "The term "dark side of planning" was coined by Flyvbjerg...Yiftachel (1995) similarly talked about a 'dark side of modernism' " from which, by Original Research and Synthesis, the writer of the article concludes "Taken together, and independently of each other, these works introduced the "dark side" as a concept " -- not even "dark side of planning," just "dark side"!  The article then goes on to talk how it "draws and expands upon" various famous concepts by other people. The references in the article indicate also there is no fixed terminology,  just people talking about a very general way of looking at things, that could be called by a great variety of vague names, such as the coinage used here. In other words, I agree with Arthur Rubin.    DGG ( talk ) 02:58, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 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.