Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Urban Figure Ground Debate


 * 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   keep. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

figure-ground diagram (ne&eacute; Urban Figure Ground Debate)

 * – ( View AfD View log ) •

Essay, well referenced, but still an Essay...see WP:NOT Wuh  Wuz  Dat  20:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's at an unencyclopaedic title, and it doesn't have an encyclopaedic introduction, but there is a concept in urban design called a figure-ground diagram, that this, and the sources that it cites, is in fact discussing. It's related to the Nolli map (credited to Giambattista Nolli) but not quite the same thing.  If you want to write an encyclopaedic introduction to refactor this into an encyclopaedia article without deletion,  and  are not bad places to start. Uncle G (talk) 23:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep/merge Uncle G has pointed the way forward. Another article which covers these matters is urban morphology.  Colonel Warden (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete: as pervasive and tenuous WP:Synthesis. Whilst the search-box above demonstrates that "figure-ground diagrams" exist, and the article demonstrates that debates exist in urban planning -- nothing suggests that there is a debate specifically on the use of figure-ground diagrams (in fact the article makes no mention at all of "figure-ground" after the lead). HrafnTalkStalk(P) 12:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It in fact mentions figure grounds no fewer than 16 times. You are not reading properly, and your notion of synthesis is thus ill-founded.  Uncle G (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * My apologies, although my claim that it did not mention "figure-ground" was, technically, correct, I failed to search for "figure ground". Speaking of such searches, I would note that Curtis(2006), one of the more heavily-cited works in the article appears to mention the two-word combination only once (as "figure/ground"). Also, other than the sentence "By the late 1960s and 1970s, architects began to criticize the void condition of the figure ground created by urban renewal for 'disregarding human needs, for not blending in, for lacking signs of identity and association, and for being an instrument of class oppression'", the article does little to place the "figure ground" concept at the heart of debates over urban planning. HrafnTalkStalk(P)
 * Why should it? You're being mis-led by the bad title, I suspect.  Think of this article as figure-ground diagram (a.k.a., if I can find a decent source to support it, figure-field diagram), a tool used in the figure-field theory of urban design.  Then go and read the whole of .  This article's basic problems were that it didn't have an introduction (explaining jargon such as poch&eacute; that it later used) and was at an unencyclopaedic title. Uncle G (talk) 13:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * As you yourself admit, it's also a badly jargon-riddled article, as well as a bad title. Somebody already immersed in urban planning might be able to work out what it's talking about, but the average reader probably wouldn't -- and I don't think simply a better introduction will fix this. So lacking good title, a good lead or good content, what is there to this article that's worth saving? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't admit either of those. Read what I wrote closely, paying particular attention to the tenses of the verbs.  And witness that even though I possess it, no deletion tool needed to be used in the fixing of this article.  No-one said that there wasn't good content in the early revisions, by the way.  You're basing an argument upon facts not in evidence, as it were, there.  Uncle G (talk)
 * As you yourself admit, it's also a badly jargon-riddled article, as well as a bad title. Somebody already immersed in urban planning might be able to work out what it's talking about, but the average reader probably wouldn't -- and I don't think simply a better introduction will fix this. So lacking good title, a good lead or good content, what is there to this article that's worth saving? HrafnTalkStalk(P) 14:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't admit either of those. Read what I wrote closely, paying particular attention to the tenses of the verbs.  And witness that even though I possess it, no deletion tool needed to be used in the fixing of this article.  No-one said that there wasn't good content in the early revisions, by the way.  You're basing an argument upon facts not in evidence, as it were, there.  Uncle G (talk)


 * Keep This seems to be a real and notable topic. The article suffers from coat-rackism since it takes us through 500 years of the history of urban planning when just an explanation of the topic would do. Steve Dufour (talk) 14:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep The article had a bad start (and title) and still needs cleanup and improvement but the term is important in urban design and is used in architecture as well. Given that the information in the article is referenced I think is easier to improve it from what we have now than delete and re-write. Btw, there is a German wiki article as well. --Elekhh (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2010 (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.