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The result was Withdrawn I may have been a bit hasty in nominating, my apologies. Withdrawing. (non-admin closure) CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 13:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interruption (speech)[edit]

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

This reads more like an essay rather than an encyclopedic article and is already covered here. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 23:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have been working with this user as part of the Wikipedia Fellows program. I appreciate your concerns that it may seem essaylike. Could you elaborate on what specifically sounds that way? I'll note that the article is still under active development. It seemed good enough for mainspace, given the sourcing/content, and it has been continually improved since the nomination shortly after moving. Feedback and development are built into the program, but feedback from other Wikipedians is always welcome, too, and I'd encourage you to post some thoughts to the talk page. To the extent there are tone issues, it doesn't seem anywhere near WP:TNT territory. And I think it's inaccurate to say that this topic, the kind of verbal/speech-based interruption in interpersonal communication (studied in communication studies, sociology, linguistics, etc.), is covered by interruption science, a study of task interruption (based in human-computer interaction and cognitive science). Little-to-none of the content in this article is even mentioned there, and the words "communication", "socio*", and "linguis*" don't even appear. I'd urge the nominator to withdraw, if for no other reason than WP:HEY, but will abstain from !voting given my COI due to involvement in this project. --Ryan (Wiki Ed) (talk) 04:50, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. The Mighty Glen (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a well-written and amply sourced article on a notable topic. The Interruption science article referred to by the nom is in an unrelated area. – Uanfala (talk) 05:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is widely studied, and I don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the article. Cnilep (talk) 07:47, 14 March 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.