177:
making) which discusses reactive decision making and the problems that it engenders for a business, in detail on pages 16–17 in a section entitled "Reacting Versus
Responding". Another such is ISBN 9780803955110 which has a section explicitly entitled "reactive decision making" on pages 355–356. A third is ISBN 9780805847154, which has a section entitled "Proactive and Reactive Decisions" on pages 5–6. There are even papers dealing with these and related subjects on-line on the World Wide Web, such as
490:, it can't BOTH be Original Research and a regurgitated management textbook. Uncle has shown potential for expansion, and even if it could be merged somewhere, that's no reason to delete a topic which passes the GNG by itself. Furthermore it's not just a random phrase, many google book hits show it as a topic or subtopic in its own right. For example Quantitative Geography. Weak keep because the article itself is weak right now and not much would be lost by deletion.
198:, previously deleted via Proposed Deletion, on the grounds that it actually covers the obverse of this coin, and contains useful content that can be built upon. Both of these subjects, the one being the obverse of the other, satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion. They might be better dealt with together (as
176:
criteria for notability, your opinion would be ill-founded, given that their are plenty of sources on business management that discuss types of decision making such as this, and the reasons that one is used over the other. One such is ISBN 9780787976361 (an entire book on the subject of decision
284:
deleted too. No one disputes the fact that such decision making modes exist and are discussed in the literature, but having an article dedicated to the phrase "Responsible decision making" makes as much sense as having one for the term "Driving with your eyes open". Uncle G: If you want to add a
333:
Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently. This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under
Knowledge (XXG)'s guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to
408:
No notability is claimed, in fact, no sources are used at all. It is true notability is not subjective, but it is not established by expert opinion, either. Specific, verifiable, claims of notability have to be made by notable reliable sources in the field.
240:
no substantial content. The articles don't attempt to be more than a paragraph appropriate to a very elementary textbook, making superficial unsourced value judgments and not giving sources. I don't see them as plausible bases for an article.
338:, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles. Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one. I would also remind Uncle G to
191:
nominating articles for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability. Had you done so here, you would have turned up the above and many others. Your nomination was an exceedingly poor one.
511:
of scholarly references to this. It is therefore a sensible search term and so deletion is quite inappropriate. If the current content is poor then we improve in accordance with our
289:
to discuss these terms, it may make more sense. It currently has a poorly-written section called "Styles and methods of decision making" which definitely needs some serious editing.
129:
159:
Fortunately, Knowledge (XXG) is not an encyclopaedia of things that individual editors subjectively consider to be pointless and non-notable, and
Knowledge (XXG)'s concept of
153:
202:
are), but that doesn't require deletion in any way. (Even if
Knowledge (XXG)'s treatment of the subjects is merged, these original titles are sensible redirect titles.)
383:
and not seeing that while this content might have value, it doesn't have value as single articles, and that the community already has had successful experiences, such as
96:
91:
100:
524:
499:
482:
454:
439:
418:
351:
322:
298:
252:
232:
215:
83:
17:
184:
396:
270:
65:
539:
36:
257:
So you don't see
Knowledge (XXG) discussing proactive and reactive decision making despite the existence of sources
163:
87:
363:- I also find OwenX's argument persuasive: even if the content would prove to be notable, they would be better in
137:
538:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
520:
281:
195:
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
447:: If you're going to vote delete, at least explain why you think adding Uncle G's references wouldn't help. -
368:
141:
79:
71:
149:
452:
435:
508:
160:
512:
318:
495:
467:
347:
199:
384:
376:
516:
448:
431:
414:
392:
145:
266:
211:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
478:
314:
61:
380:
339:
372:
364:
343:
335:
293:
286:
57:
470:
463:
423:
166:. You are not making an argument for notability here, and your rationale is a poor one.
178:
410:
388:
248:
491:
262:
229:
225:
207:
144:, all created by the same user, which I think are pointless and non-notable terms.
117:
308:
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
474:
290:
50:
243:
430:
the three. Sounds like someone vomited up a management textbook.
136:
This is the third in a trifecta of articles, which also includes
532:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
387:, to deal with related concepts with an article. Thanks!--
124:
113:
109:
105:
313:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
542:). No further edits should be made to this page.
367:as a subsection, or even unified in a sourced
8:
259:explicitly discussing those very things
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
342:when dealing with other editors.
24:
261:, some of which are cited above?
189:look for sources ourselves before
462:all three of these articles as
1:
525:23:18, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
500:17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
483:15:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
455:13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
440:07:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
419:05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
397:05:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
352:01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
323:00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
299:17:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
271:15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
253:13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
233:07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
216:23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
154:21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
66:00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
138:responsible decision making
559:
375:becomes to large (as per
282:Proactive decision making
196:Proactive decision making
535:Please do not modify it.
369:Decision making concepts
142:inactive decision making
80:Reactive decision making
72:Reactive decision making
32:Please do not modify it.
280:all three, and leave
187:, we are supposed to
379:). Uncle G is being
200:on-line and off-line
44:The result was
464:original research
340:assume good faith
325:
174:Knowledge (XXG)'s
164:is not subjective
64:
550:
537:
406:Delete all three
331:Delete all three
312:
310:
168:And even if you
127:
121:
103:
56:
53:
34:
558:
557:
553:
552:
551:
549:
548:
547:
546:
540:deletion review
533:
475:Smerdis of Tlön
373:Decision making
365:Decision making
336:Decision making
306:
296:
287:Decision making
123:
94:
78:
75:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
556:
554:
545:
544:
528:
527:
517:Colonel Warden
513:editing policy
502:
485:
457:
442:
421:
402:
401:
400:
399:
355:
354:
327:
326:
311:
303:
302:
301:
294:
275:
274:
273:
235:
219:
194:I've restored
134:
133:
74:
69:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
555:
543:
541:
536:
530:
529:
526:
522:
518:
514:
510:
506:
503:
501:
497:
493:
489:
486:
484:
480:
476:
472:
469:
468:uninformative
465:
461:
458:
456:
453:
450:
446:
443:
441:
437:
433:
432:StonerDude420
429:
425:
422:
420:
416:
412:
407:
404:
403:
398:
394:
390:
386:
382:
378:
374:
370:
366:
362:
359:
358:
357:
356:
353:
349:
345:
341:
337:
332:
329:
328:
324:
320:
316:
309:
305:
304:
300:
297:
292:
288:
283:
279:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
255:
254:
250:
246:
245:
239:
236:
234:
231:
227:
223:
220:
218:
217:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
192:
190:
186:
182:
180:
175:
171:
165:
162:
158:
157:
156:
155:
151:
147:
143:
139:
131:
126:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
98:
93:
89:
85:
81:
77:
76:
73:
70:
68:
67:
63:
59:
55:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
534:
531:
504:
487:
459:
444:
427:
405:
360:
330:
307:
277:
258:
242:
237:
221:
203:
193:
188:
183:
173:
169:
167:
146:Korny O'Near
135:
49:
45:
43:
31:
28:
315:Ron Ritzman
285:section in
507:There are
385:WP:SUMMARY
377:WP:SUMMARY
344:Theseeker4
161:notability
58:delusional
488:Weak keep
409:Thanks!--
185:By policy
172:applying
509:hundreds
471:bollocks
411:Cerejota
389:Cerejota
179:this one
130:View log
62:kangaroo
492:Pulsaro
466:and as
445:Comment
381:WP:OWNy
361:Comment
263:Uncle G
230:John254
226:Uncle G
208:Uncle G
97:protect
92:history
460:Delete
428:Delete
278:Delete
238:Delete
125:delete
101:delete
46:Delete
424:WP:OR
291:Owen×
128:) – (
118:views
110:watch
106:links
52:Jerry
16:<
521:talk
505:Keep
496:talk
479:talk
473:. -
436:talk
415:talk
393:talk
348:talk
319:talk
267:talk
249:talk
224:per
222:Keep
212:talk
204:Keep
170:were
150:talk
140:and
114:logs
88:talk
84:edit
449:Mgm
371:if
244:DGG
523:)
515:.
498:)
481:)
438:)
417:)
395:)
350:)
321:)
269:)
251:)
228:.
214:)
206:.
152:)
116:|
112:|
108:|
104:|
99:|
95:|
90:|
86:|
60:¤
48:.
519:(
494:(
477:(
451:|
434:(
426:'
413:(
391:(
346:(
317:(
295:☎
265:(
247:(
210:(
181:.
148:(
132:)
122:(
120:)
82:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.