Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team conflict

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. Consensus is that this subject has received a fair amount of coverage and meets notability guidelines. However, expansion and organization of the article may be necessary.

(non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Team conflict

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Obvious NOR/SYNTH violation is obvious, and the article's carried tags for the same for over ten years. Ravenswing 00:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep Team conflict? Like when some members of the team build something and then others members of the team try to destroy it? This is obviously notable as the page already has plenty of sources and there are lots more out there about this common phenomenon. If the article is not
WP:ATD which states clearly that "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep it is not synth when it is a legitimate term within Behavioral dynamics. Even Johns Hopkins has something to say (See page 37). about the science of resolving team conflict. And Books. Group Dynamics for teams. We have another article which is a is in this subject area: Group Dynamics. As a merge target, I think it would be too lengthy. Lightburst (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Legitimate term as mentioned above. Click the Google news search at the top of the AFD and you see ample coverage of this problem. Even NASA accepts it as a real problem they have to find ways of preventing. [1] Dream Focus 18:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it is notable. The article needs some tidying though. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:11, 16 July 2020 (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.