175:"). Not enough reliable, third-party sources to verify the information. If the main website used as a reference is owned by the author, then the source is not valid, as it is not third-party. The author should be advised that Knowledge is not the place to publish his personal findings unless they receive independent coverage. --
491:
that I agree his offer, even if there is no guarantee or promise that the future article will be validated by
English Knowledge. Up to your convenience, I am ready to be helped to work either on the above mentioned article in order to improve it, either on a new one. On the while, this article can be
435:
3) Third party: the originator (J. Bucki) is a party; English WP is a party, Robertatum is a party and sources mentioned are independant and are parties as well. So there is a third party. The author of the article is not the owner of the site where it is reproduced and where you can read it is under
223:
3/ See
External link that shows that the method BADSc is recognised and is belonging to the public domain. Therefore Sources are showing that BADSc method is recognised for more than ten years by french management school HEC (N°1 in France), scientific school as CNAM and by CNRS, which is a branch of
442:
5) References and sources langage: "English-langages sources should be used in preference to foreign langages sources" don't mean that only english sources are available. French-langage sources are available too as french langage is recognised as an international langage as well as
78:
374:
Not really. I have created several stubs with more sourcing than that. Also, it's not actually a stub; it has enough sentences to be considered a Start-class article. Therefore, it is quite badly sourced for a Start-class article.
73:
301:
Thank you. Well, based on that, it's certainly valid enough for a stub-length article, if nothing else. So, discounting that discounting non-English sources is nothing more than a suggestion, I say... •
475:
the current article. I think that an article on this topic is possible, but this article currently needs too much work to fix. I have emailed
Robertatum to offer to mentor him for a few weeks.
105:
100:
109:
92:
221:
2/ The main website used as a reference is not owned by the originator of the method (Janusz Bucki) but by IEGD Institute. On request I can send to you the permission of the author.
338:
What we're discussing here is not the article's length, but it's notability. Your comment has nothing to do with the discussion and the concerns raised by the nom and myself. --
132:
440:
4) Writer of the different sources : Of course, there is the originator of the approach but there are several writers: Sylvain Roth (DGA)and Y Pesqueux (HEC) for instance...
454:
288:, which says "Because this is the English Knowledge, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources".
142:
this was nominated a few days ago but the discovery of a copyvio truncated that debate. The copyvio has now been resolved (the source page is now licensed under GFDL - see
501:
479:
466:
415:
393:
368:
356:
332:
308:
292:
268:
249:
228:
193:
162:
57:
458:
497:
You made the demonstration that
Knowledge is a "complex system" and we are "autonomous agents working together by different ways towards commmun objectives".
245:
reliable sources. Links to sources authored by the originators of the theory are not independent, and non-English sources do not belong in
English wiki.
96:
17:
436:
GFDL licence. The author is neither the owner of the site, neither a member (list mentioned at the bottom of the first page)
423:
216:
208:
88:
63:
146:. The problems initially identified with the article remain, described by that nominator as: "This bizarrely vague (cf
382:
345:
182:
515:
36:
514:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
450:
410:
363:
327:
303:
263:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
377:
340:
177:
173:
In the current highly complex, changing, and exacting environment, we need more efficient approaches...
159:
53:
147:
212:
155:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
426:, I can help you to make fairly your "keep" and "delete" choices by giving some explanations:
285:
498:
463:
225:
143:
433:
2) Copyright status: article under GFDL licence. On request, other prooves can be shown.
387:
350:
289:
246:
238:
187:
49:
362:
I meant that it seems notable enough for a stub-length article, with that sourcing. •
492:
deleted or kept. Up to you according your interpretation of
Knowledge regulations.
151:
126:
488:
476:
437:
79:
Articles for deletion/Decisional analysis of complex systems (2nd nomination)
461:
CNAM, is promoting this approach. ISBN and ISSN numbers are also mentioned.
445:
6) Notability: sources show that the specific approach is published by
508:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
446:
74:
Articles for deletion/Decisional analysis of complex systems
150:) article references only papers by one author and fails
453:, ranked Number 1 in Europe, by the scientifique school
241:
test as it does not demonstrate significant coverage in
122:
118:
114:
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
260:non-English sources do not belong in English wiki.
518:). No further edits should be made to this page.
409:. Change to delete based on the above info. •
455:École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris
8:
284:I paraphrased (and possibly oversimplified)
224:the french Ministry of scientific research.
431:1) Vocabulary and grammar: problem solved.
219:sujects are decision making and complexity.
459:Conservatoire National des Arts et MĂ©tiers
71:
457:. A scientific great estabisment, the
424:decisional analysis of complex systems
217:decisional analysis of complex systems
209:decisional analysis of complex systems
89:Decisional analysis of complex systems
64:Decisional analysis of complex systems
7:
70:
326:Fine for a stub length article. •
24:
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
502:15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
154:. It may also be redundant to
58:11:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
1:
480:12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
467:13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
416:22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
394:22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
369:22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
357:22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
333:15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
309:15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
293:14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
269:13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
250:09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
229:08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
194:00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
163:23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
215:subject is information and
535:
158:" seems to me rather apt.
262:Where is that written? •
511:Please do not modify it.
451:HEC School of Management
171:- reads like an essay ("
32:Please do not modify it.
69:AfDs for this article:
211:is not redundant as
213:Decision analysis
156:decision analysis
526:
513:
413:
390:
385:
380:
366:
353:
348:
343:
330:
306:
266:
237:- does not pass
190:
185:
180:
130:
112:
34:
534:
533:
529:
528:
527:
525:
524:
523:
522:
516:deletion review
509:
489:John Vandenberg
477:John Vandenberg
411:
388:
383:
378:
364:
351:
346:
341:
328:
304:
264:
188:
183:
178:
103:
87:
84:
67:
44:The result was
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
532:
530:
521:
520:
495:
494:
493:
482:
462:
444:
441:
439:
434:
432:
429:
428:
427:
419:
418:
412:Lawrence Cohen
403:
402:
401:
400:
399:
398:
397:
396:
365:Lawrence Cohen
329:Lawrence Cohen
319:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
312:
305:Lawrence Cohen
274:
273:
272:
271:
265:Lawrence Cohen
253:
252:
222:
220:
205:
204:
203:
197:
196:
160:Carlossuarez46
137:
136:
83:
82:
81:
76:
68:
66:
61:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
531:
519:
517:
512:
506:
505:
504:
503:
500:
490:
486:
483:
481:
478:
474:
471:
470:
469:
468:
465:
460:
456:
452:
448:
438:
425:
421:
420:
417:
414:
408:
405:
404:
395:
392:
391:
386:
381:
373:
372:
371:
370:
367:
360:
359:
358:
355:
354:
349:
344:
337:
336:
335:
334:
331:
325:
321:
320:
311:
310:
307:
300:
296:
295:
294:
291:
287:
283:
280:
279:
278:
277:
276:
275:
270:
267:
261:
257:
256:
255:
254:
251:
248:
244:
240:
236:
233:
232:
231:
230:
227:
218:
214:
210:
202:
199:
198:
195:
192:
191:
186:
181:
174:
170:
167:
166:
165:
164:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
134:
128:
124:
120:
116:
111:
107:
102:
98:
94:
90:
86:
85:
80:
77:
75:
72:
65:
62:
60:
59:
55:
51:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
510:
507:
496:
484:
472:
430:
422:As I edited
406:
376:
361:
339:
323:
322:
298:
297:
281:
259:
242:
234:
206:
200:
176:
172:
168:
139:
138:
45:
43:
31:
28:
487:I answered
243:independent
148:WP:BOLLOCKS
499:Robertatum
464:Robertatum
239:notability
226:Robertatum
290:Gandalf61
286:WP:SOURCE
247:Gandalf61
50:Wknight94
485:Comment.
443:spanish.
258:Really?
133:View log
282:Comment
106:protect
101:history
473:Delete
407:Delete
379:Boricu
342:Boricu
235:Delete
179:Boricu
169:Delete
140:Delete
110:delete
46:Delete
449:, by
324:Keep.
299:Reply
152:WP:RS
127:views
119:watch
115:links
16:<
447:CNRS
389:ddie
352:ddie
201:Keep
189:ddie
144:this
123:logs
97:talk
93:edit
54:talk
48:. —
207:1/
131:– (
375:--
125:|
121:|
117:|
113:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
56:)
384:æ
347:æ
184:æ
135:)
129:)
91:(
52:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.