- 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. qedk ( t 桜 c) 07:09, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Outline of futures studies
[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!
- Outline of futures studies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
I don't know what this is, but it isn't an article, I think. Guy ( help!) 13:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Delete I agree - definitely not an article, but unsure what it actually is — Preceding unsigned comment added by FriendlyCaribou ( talk • contribs) 15:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- It is a WP:OUTLINE. Why should it be deleted? Thincat ( talk) 16:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - The article's being a WP:OUTLINE is not sufficient reason for deletion. The related article is Futures studies. Wikipedia:WikiProject Outlines covers many such outlines, which are auxiliary to the main article. The referencing appears adequate, and the subject notable. Dialectric ( talk) 17:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep Outlines are an accepted form of Wikipedia list-class article and are fine as alternative navigational articles per
WP:CLN. As Dialectric noted the subject is notable, and the referencing not bad. The article could use some cleanup of unreferenced redlinks, but that is a
WP:SURMOUNTABLE problem. Hence, keep. --
{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk}20:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC) - Weak Keep I have purged the article of non-notable subjects and Outline articles like this are legitimate for navigational purposes, but I have serious concerns about whether the list is able to be maintained. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 23:55, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 23:24, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep, not knowing about something is not a legitimate reason to delete, nominator could have asked questions on the article talkpage or the relevant projects. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:14, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
- Keep - Outlines are generally kept if the subject is broad enough. Hog Farm ( talk) 14:35, 17 February 2020 (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.