Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Time discipline


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. ✗ plicit  03:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Time_discipline
AfDs for this article:


 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

I'm having trouble finding reliable secondary sources on this topic besides the book that originated this concept and few stray academic articles and blog posts. May fail WP:Notability, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RS. I find the existing article somewhat inscrutable and it also feels a bit WP:FRINGE, but perhaps someone else is more familiar with this topic. Chase Kanipe (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  14:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters. —cyberbot I   Talk to my owner :Online 14:13, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry all for the temporarily broken templates... not sure what happened. Took a few attempts for me to fix it. Chase Kanipe (talk) 14:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  Spiderone (Talk to Spider) 18:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * delete, large unsourced article that reads like essay, probably SYNTH. Parts are about Time, part is about History of timekeeping. Artem.G (talk) 21:54, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete: One source does seem significant and reliable, but otherwise the article is a mess. Very SYNTHy, cobbling together different topics and sources that are only marginally about the subject being discussed (which seems to change throughout the article).  The concept might be notable but without better sources there's nothing to say. WeirdNAnnoyed (talk) 03:06, 3 April 2024 (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.