Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Violence Peace and Peace Research

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 no consensus. Moving and refocusing the article can be discussed on the talk page. ansh 666 02:14, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Violence Peace and Peace Research

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

individual academic paper, notable by itself, only in context of the author's work. It is not clear that the 3rd party references are references substantially tho this particular paper, or to the author's work in general, or to the problem that he has studied. DGG ( talk ) 06:23, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Happy New Year!!! ^{Babymissfortune} 06:36, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hmm. Do we do that, articles for individual journal articles? At more than 5000 cites, this is definitely is a "seminal" work, but generally even heavier hitters tend to form part of the originator's article or an article discussing the wider topic (e.g. Hirotugu Akaike/Akaike information criterion at 38k+ [1]). On the gripping hand, that paper seems complex enough to merit article-length treatment. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 10:04, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps the article should be renamed to "Conflict Triangle", that way it isn't specifically referring to the paper but rather the main theory being discussed within it EvilxFish (talk) 19:18, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd accept that as a rename. It would dealwith some of the problems. DGG ( talk ) 02:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Conflict Triangle SeraphWiki (talk) 03:05, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This article (bearing in mind its title) does not have any focus and is an opinion essay on a topic. To me, it fails to establish the notability of the article in itself (c.f. On the Origin of Species). So Rename to Conflict Triangle may be appropriate with some cleanup to ensure it retains focus and notability, or alternatively a redirect to Johan Galtung. Nick Moyes (talk) 13:50, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: There is a lack of notability, reliable sources, and focus. Changing the name won't fix this. See my rationale in comments and extra comments below. Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Hold the horses up here. Discussions are forming to gain consensus to rename the article and I am trying to figure out how that is going to "fix" ANYTHING. I am still at 1)- "there are issues", and 2)- "Do we do that?" (normally, some exceptions, or at all) on a 26 page research journal (academic paper) article. The "gripping" part is notability "of this subject and article". Being complex enough to merit article-length treatment would just mean the introduction of even more WP:OR and synthesis than is already evident. Objectively re-read the "paper" and look at the primary source. After that, and considering the lack of coverage in reliable sources "on this subject", with what is presented in the article, and look at the article again. The "suggested" target title (Conflict Triangle) is one concept touched on in the "paper". How can just changing the title to a more narrow area solve anything? Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Extra comments:

This is certainly an interesting area but with a vague overall concept not directly dealt with in reliable sources. The "paper" is all over the map as is this article. Look at the Direct Violence section with an unsourced first paragraph. This sets the stage for the following paragraphs and I see synthesis. There are beginning references like Malhotra, Anju. "Solutions to End Child Marriage", and the swing into what appears to be fringe theories. Even if someone can point me to a connection in the "paper" to content related to child marriage, and the overall subject of this article, PLEASE do, look at it again. I am all for being against "child marriage', but this content presents a biased and POV view from the ICRW that: "Marriage before the age of 18 is a fundamental human rights violation.". Yes this is content (and can be deleted) but a lack of overall reliable sources to tie this as well as other forks into the article is how we end up with this mess and a future article so broad as to be worthless and generally unsupported by reliable sources.

It gets worse. The next unsourced section (Reinforcing Factors): "Galtung focuses a section of the paper", refers to content from the primary source with no text–source integrity so we have to read the whole thing to try to determine anything.

More on getting "worse": The citation style pointing to references. I am to believe that we provide an inline citation to provide verification of text, providing text–source integrity, of the content proceeding the reference. In this article we have a beginning reference that supports a couple of lines then a whole lot of actually unsupported content. Look at the third and fourth paragraphs of of the Direct Violence section, or for that matter the whole article is the same, like with the Cultural Violence section. This is a mess that changing the title will not fix. Redirecting to a section in the Johan Galtung concerning the "paper" (that would be appropriate) would mean we would need to get rid of all the "junk", that is a majority of the article, and place it in a section. I could not even verify the content of the Criticism section. The first reference "Brewer, John D. (2010). Peace processes: a Sociological Approach. Polity Press" should support content that includes "Johan Galtung's Conflict Triangle and Peace Research paper are widely cited as the foundational pieces of theory". The second reference (Lawler, Peter (1995). A Question of Values: Johan Galtung's Peace Research. Lynne Rienner) in the second paragraph supports "Galtung uses a positivist approach". This is a 267 page book, again with no actual text–source integrity, lacking page numbers. I would submit that maintaining any hope of "focus" with a stand-alone article would be near impossible, even if we could renamed it Johan Galtung (Violence Peace and Peace Research) as a split, so I see an interesting area attempted to be presented in an un-salvageable article. Otr500 (talk) 10:23, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It has sufficient resources and valuable content. Glycomics123 (talk) 08:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.