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. No reliable sources ~ no article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:38, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interconnectedness[edit]

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

This article has no substantial sources, and is mostly an opinion essay based on original research. It pieces together various forms of interconnectedness (economic and political) to create a religious sense of connectedness in the reader. That's great rhetoric, but bad for an encyclopedia. I don't see how to turn it into a good article, as it has no clearly defined topic. Daask (talk) 21:36, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article has waited over ten years for reliable sources, and none are forthcoming. The last large contribution to the article is a word-for-word copy of non-free content from a website that isn't even about the topic. Also, WTF is this? — Warren. ‘ talk , 06:35, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- badly sourced essay mostly concerned with unscientific woo-woo. Reyk _YO! 11:07, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - indiscriminate collection of unrelated quotes and trivia. Gandalf61 (talk) 11:37, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mystical mishmash. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The pages interconnectivity and interdependence look pretty bad too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I forgot to say earlier: the sentence "Interconnectedness is the main aspect of chaos theory" is just wrong. Where is the "interconnectedness" in the logistic map or the Lorenz equations or the Van der Pol oscillator? (I guess a driven damped pendulum kit is "interconnected" in the sense that if I want to use it in a lab, I have to "interconnect" it with an electrical outlet.) Platitudinous, "chaos theory says we're all connected, man" vagaries have no place in an encyclopedia. And synthesis of vagaries on the basis that, in their warmth and fuzziness, they sound alike — that is not an improvement. XOR'easter (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above, unsourced anbd iffy.Slatersteven (talk) 18:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOR. Ajf773 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I am appalled to see only frank deletionists at work. True, it's a mish-mash. But for ...'s sake, let's keep the parts for the time being, so that at least we can create more specific articles and make it a disambiguation page. I have already applied some cleanup and the religious stuff for one may need some sharpening but is absolutely substantial. You do not want to include interpenetration in network theory for sure? Well, here goes your missing link (viz. article). -- Kku (talk) 16:49, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem here is a lack of reliable sources. Sourcing is essential to Wikipedia's mission, and we are under no obligation to keep any text that can't be attributable to a source. — Warren. ‘ talk , 17:02, 18 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.