Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wicked problems


 * 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 - 3 December 2004‎

tagged for speedy. i think it is not a speedy candidate. but, since i removed the tag, here it is for a vote. i take no position. Wolfman 04:43, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Delete, speedy would be fine by me but it is borderline . --fvw* 06:08, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. This does need work but I can't imagine how anyone could imagine it to be a delete candidate, let alone a speedy.  Honestly, what part of the deletion policy does it invoke?  it's not patent nonsense, it's not original research, no suggestion has been raised that it's a copyvio -- I can imagine the possibility of each of these coming to mind when reading the article, but not by anyone who'd made even minimal effort to understand the article or in the last case, even minimal effort to check that assumption.  Please, I want to believe the best of my fellow Wikipedians, why would this article be a speedy delete or a delete at all?? -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:26, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I authored the piece originally, and do not understand what is wrong with the article, or why it may not be good enough for Wikipedia... It would be nice to learn what is "good enough," and to have critics make positive suggestions rather than simply make negative comments.  M Hoffmann
 * One suggestion I'd make (and would do myself if I wasn't already WP-editing when I should be sleeping) is boil the most important essence of the subject down to a very tight intro paragraph, something like "The term wicked problems is used in the field of planning and in research on problem solving to designate a class of problems more difficult than so-called tame problems. While the distinctions between the two classes are many, the key differences are..."  That intro paragraph gives a reader a framework to understand the rest of what you're going to say about the subject.  -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:44, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * M. Hoffman, there's nothing wrong with the article. This may already be clear to you if you've been following this discussion. There is a procedure called "speedy deletions" that is supposed to be used for a very limited class of articles, described in WP:CSD. Speedy deletions are typically things like articles that say "asdfasdfasdf." Your article was nominated for speedy deletion by someone. I haven't bothered to ask that user why. I think most of us believe that whoever did so was a jerk. The actual deletions are performed by sysops, and User:Wolfman, examining the list for action, quickly recognized that it was not a speedy. In such cases, procedure calls for it to be discussed here in Votes for Deletion. Here, I think the issue under debate is whether "Wicked problems" is truly encyclopedic, whether it is a real phrase in real use, whether H. J. Rittel is notable enough for his concept to be worthy of an article, and whether you wrote the article yourself or copied it somewhere. For an article to be deleted, it must be discussed for five days and there must be a "rough consensus to delete," often interpreted as a 2/3 majority to delete. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:53, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Antaeus makes a fine case. Please, fvw, could you give more indepth reasoning for your votes, because it's hard to understand why you think we should delete the articles you vote on. In this case particularly, it would be good for everyone to be clear why this should be deleted, because it seems to me this is absolutely nowhere near the line, and if I'm wrong about that, I'd like to know why. Keep.Dr Zen 07:07, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * You're correct, it's not a speedy, my bad; It looked like yet another cut and paste homework article by an anonymous at first glance. I'm sticking with my delete vote however, putting an odd name on pretty much all real-world problems does not noteworthy make. --fvw* 07:25, 2004 Nov 21 (UTC)
 * Even an actual copyvio is not a candidate for speedy deletion. As for it being just an "odd name" on "pretty much all real-world problems", the article lists four defining characteristics and eleven secondary characteristics of the theoretical classification.  That's more than "an odd name".  If you have reason to believe that those characteristics are ill-chosen and that the theoretical construct is of only illusory value, then that is legitimate opposition -- but not opposition that should be dealt with by saying "Delete; this doesn't seem very useful to me so we shouldn't even acknowledge it as a perspective on problem-solving." -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:52, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * First, it's refreshing to see an article that appears to be about something worth thinking about -- as opposed to game trivia, etc. etc. I'm surprised to see it as a candidate for deletion, let alone speedy deletion. It's not trivial, not vanity, not spamvertising, etc. Therefore, keep. However, it does seem uncomfortably close to Wicked Problems -- this gives it more credibility (whereas it's so abstract that it might otherwise be an elaborate hoax) but it could be profitably rearranged. In addition to the introductory paragraph already recommended, I'd like to see specific examples: not just unspecified problems in this or that field, but specific problems. Hoary 07:35, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, the arguments above are convincing &mdash; siro  &chi;  o  10:44, Nov 21, 2004 (UTC)


 * Keep: I had wanted to do some cross-checking this morning, but I have to say that I agree with the author that it's pretty clearly not a speedy.  When an article is inappropriately tagged with a speedy delete tag, it's customary to drop it onto VfD so that the nominator has a chance, at least, to explain what's wrong.  The article seems to be in process and doesn't seem to be original research at all.  Geogre 15:57, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep. Nominations such as this are proof that we need a better VfD process.  Our current one is broken.  Badly. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 16:12, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Why is it broken? It seems to be working rather well in this case.  Someone thought this was a speedy, but I disagreed.  So I put it up here to let the community decide, even though I would normally not have nominated it myself.  What's wrong with that? Wolfman 17:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Wolfman, please do not take this as a personal attack. You rightfully removed the Speedy tag.  The simple fact that anyone can tag something as Speedy and then we all have to vote to keep it is a nominal waste of time.  If you fail to see that, then lets agree to disagree. [[en:RaD Man|RaD Man (talk)]] 18:04, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * A speedy deletion request for something that should not deleted is a disagreement. Seems to me that requiring that such a disagreement receive discussion is a good idea, and VfD seems like the obvious place for that discussion to take place. In a healthy VfD process, I'd expect some VfD discussions to reach consensus to keep. What's the alternative? Revert wars on speedy deletion? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep, unless someone can give a better explanation of why it would be a deletion candidate. It's not original research. It purports to be a summary of work that is properly referenced. I vaguely think I've heard the term "wicked problem" in this context before; if I have heard of something, it's probably notable (though the converse of course does not apply). Ah. I know where I heard of it. It was a programming book entitled "Wicked problems, righteous solutions," ISBN 013590126X, I think I saw it browsing through books in the Softpro bookstore and dithered about whether to buy it and didn't. Google gets 12,400 hits on "Wicked problems" (exact phrase) and the top hits are all relevant. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith (talk)]] 18:33, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep. I just wrote and posted a very short article about Karl Deutsch's work (global, complex problemmes, understanding and solving) and made a link to this article. I brelieve it is needed. User:Lcgarcia 16:27, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC-5:00)
 * Was Keep before the editing done after the VfD nomination, and now a Stronger Keep. I do wonder, however, about the title, which doesn't really make much sense unless you already know the subject matter or until you read the article. Would it be better to have a title like "Wicked problems in plannning and engineering" with a redirect from "Wicked problems"? gK [[User talk:GK|&iquest;?]] 11:33, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Keep as a result of proactive editing. [[User:GRider|GRider\talk]] 18:19, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * The vote seems to favor Keep. What is the process by which the Deletion banner is removed from the article?  User:DrJeff 20:36, 1 Dec 2004 (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.