Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/General theory of collaboration


 * 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. 72.192.155.108's proposal may be better suited for a draft. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

General theory of collaboration

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural AFD. Double-PRODded with "An unsourced article that reads like a personal essay and admits its topic does not exist." I concur. There might be redirect targets, but this is not a title that will be useful. David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:00, 24 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Snow delete per WP:NOR. The first sentence of the article is "currently there exists no consolidated, general theory of collaboration" – how on earth has it survived for eleven years?? Joe Roe (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete As I said in the PROD - "An unsourced article that reads like a personal essay and admits its topic does not exist." Edward321 (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete. It is possible, sometimes, to have a well-sourced, well-written article about a theory that doesn't entirely exist yet. See, for example, Grand Unified Theory or unified field theory. This, however, is not one of those times. This a personal essay, essentially unreferenced, about a topic with essentially zero currency in anything like a reliable source. In the interests of fairness, there's some discussion of what could be this topic in: --but that's a long way from showing notability, and it does nothing to support the content we have here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * A user posted the following keep argument on an incorrect page; I am copying it over to here, but take no stance regarding it myself. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello,
 * The Wikipedia page identified as "Theory of Collaboration" is marked for deletion. I'd like to suggest that instead of deletion the page be improved.  Rather than using only the word "collaboration" consider including the word "cooperation".  In 1949 psychologist Dr. Morton Deutsch (Columbia University) proposed a theory of cooperation that is the foundation of a number of successful practices such as, but not limited to, shared decision making, cooperative learning (in education), and Quality Circles.  Doyle and Strauss wrote a comprehensive document explaining how to make meetings work by using collaboration / cooperation, entitled "How To Make Meetings Work".  Although it was written in the '70s it remains accurate and effective as a productive practice leading to consensus in business as well as education.  David W. Johnson and Roger T. Johnson (University of Minnesota Twin Cities) have extended and applied the theory of cooperation to educational practices, to conflict resolution, and to peacemaking practices.  DeVries, Edwards and Slavin have also contributed to educational applications of cooperation among students.  There is a very long and impressive line of research demonstrating the effectiveness of cooperation / collaboration in educational settings.  Often "collaboration" is used when discussing practices among "adults" while "cooperation" is more likely used when discussing interactive practices between and among children and youth.


 * Deutsch, M. (1949a). An experimental study of the effects of cooperation and competition upon group processes. Human Relations, 2, 199–231.
 * Deutsch, M. (1949b). A theory of cooperation and competition. Human Relations, 2, 129–151.
 * Deutsch, M. (1973). The resolution of conflict: Constructive and destructive processes. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
 * Deutsch, M. (1985). Distributive justice: A social psychological perspective. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
 * Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research. Edina, MN: Interaction.
 * Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2003). Social interdependence: The interrelationships among theory, research, and practice. The Center for Cooperative Learning, The University of Minnesota.
 * Slavin, R. (1977a). Classroom reward structure:  An analytic and practical review.  Review o Educational Research, 47:  733-650.
 * Slavin, R. (1977b).  How Student Learning Teams can integrate the desegregated classroom.  Integrated Education, 15:  56-58.
 * Slavin, R. (1977c). A Student Team approach to teaching adolescents with special emotional and behavioral needs.  Psychology in the Schools, 15:  77-84.
 * Slavin, R. (1978). Studet Teams and Achievement Divisions. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 12:  39-49. 72.192.155.108 (talk) 21:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * That's good, but we would literally need to throw away the present article and write a completely new one based on actual sources - David Gerard (talk) 01:01, 2 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with Snow Delete. Although I am sure the original author had good intention, this is WP:OR. The creator of this article states upfront "currently there exists no consolidated, general theory of collaboration..." Someone would have to read through some sources to discover what the intended topic is, and then write that article, based on those scholarly sources. The author did link to this as a source in the middle of the article. Although after a quick scan I tried to figure out what the topic might be - I cannot. At the same time, Wikipedia might already have sufficient coverage within the two articles entitled "Collaboration" and "Conflict resolution". --Steve Quinn (talk) 07:03, 2 October 2016 (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.