Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interaction

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 redirect to Interaction (disambiguation). I just want to say that this was a difficult discussion to parse as editors were all over the map so I'm going with the nominator's suggestion to redirect which was also supported by another editor. Some discontented editors may call it a "supervote" but the fact is that I have no opinion on what should happen with this article, I just tried to find a resolution to this nomination. One element I did pick up was that this subject has the potential to have an article written about it but this article is not it. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:05, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction[edit]

[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)

This is a very similar issue to the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mainstream discussion. This is effectively a disambig fork that has grown into a messy, poorly referenced article. I suggest redirecting this to Interaction (disambiguation) (and probably moving the disambig back). There is next to no connection between concepts such as fundamental interaction in physics, aromatic interaction in chemistry, drug interaction in medicine, social interaction in sociology, interaction (statistics) or interaction cost in the economy (although that article is a mess too). I looked at de and pl wiki articles are there are no better. Interaction is arguably an important word that belongs in wiktionary but not on Wikipedia due to not having a single meaning beyond the obvious generic one. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Science and Social science. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Replace with Interaction (disambiguation). I would have preferred it to be boldly implemented, but here we are. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 04:48, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Mix of unrelated topics with the same name. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 18:51, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Although this page doesn't serve any purpose, that couldn't be fulfilled through the disambiguation page, I'd defer to the judgement of others whether a selective merge is possible here. Biological interaction, Gene–environment interaction, and Cell–cell interaction, for instance, are maybe, plausible additions to the disambiguation page. — hako9 (talk) 22:29, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've replaced it with the disambiguation and added some of the links that were not present in the previous disambig. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 01:57, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not change this page to disambiguation during standing AfD. Let's wait for consensus to form and closing. My very best wishes (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reverting. I don't know what I was doing with a cut-and-paste move. But I did want to improve the page through editing. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 00:02, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think this is useful page, and not just a disambig. page. There is a unifying concept here, i.e. "two or more objects have an effect upon one another" as defined on the page, which is simply the dictionary definition [1]. Of course an interaction can be indirect, as in the case of drug interactions, but this is still the case of two or more objects, subjects or variables having an effect upon one another, even in economics. As a side note, nominator is wrong saying "no connection between concepts such as fundamental interaction in physics, aromatic interaction". The so called "aromatic interactions" have an electromagnetic origin. Having also a disambig. page in this case should be OK. My very best wishes (talk) 01:58, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@My very best wishes But we have to go beyond WP:ITSUSEFUL. I agree there is some potential here, but for now the page is WP:ORish collection of concepts fit for WP:TNT. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant this is a clearly defined and important subject. Yes, perhaps this page can be organized as a list, and in this case we only need a clear criterion for inclusion; that criterion seems to be obvious. My very best wishes (talk) 03:39, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defined as what? Can you show me a source that defines interaction and encompasses the meanings we use here? If not, it's OR to connect, in prose, aromatic interaction to social ineraction. That's what a disambig page is for. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:42, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I already gave the link to a dictionary above, but you are right: one needs more than a dictionary definition for a subject to have a page, and this is pretty far from my interests; I can't quickly find a book or a scholarly article on the "interaction" in the most general sense. But this page exists in 30+ WP projects on different languages, most of which are not disambig. pages. For example, according to ruwiki version, i.e. ru:Взаимодействие, this is a general philosophical category serving to describe the impact of objects/subjects on each other, their mutual conditionality and generation of objects by each other, with a reference to an article "Interaction" in Great Soviet Encyclopedia. I can't help more, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 22:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the most general sense, interactions appear in Systems theory, i.e. as described here [2], for example... My very best wishes (talk) 23:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the disambiguation page, ~~after adding the few things that aren't there: at a glance, aromatic interaction, metallophilic interaction, and biological interaction, and probably others.~~ done ℰmi1y_⧼T·C⧽ 13:57, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Keep . Let a thousand flowers bloom. Interesting subject that could be improved rather than deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:90C5:8000:B11F:818B:48F1:A0FD (talk) 01:37, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per WP:NOTDICT. A redirect to the disambiguation page is perfectly acceptable, but the article as it stands has no focus and is just a set of dictionary definitions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 07:47, 5 December 2022 (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.