Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chaotics


 * 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. I'm going to withdraw this to see how things develop in the next few months. I'll revisit this topic after a while. Per a good faith email from the article creator. (non-admin closure) NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 03:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Chaotics

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

No outside reviews that I could find at all; seems a bit un-NPOV too. Please feel free to disagree; I'm not 100% sure on this one. The authors certainly seem notable, which is why I was a bit wary of nominating this. I just want to see what the rest of you think for this. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 00:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Conditional vote - I'll go keep if the article can be rewritten to sound more like NPOV and less like an advertisement for something, and if more RS can be found. I'll vote delete if this can't be done. It's probably a keep, judging from the fact that most articles can be successfully redone, but there's always the remote possibility that it can't. flaminglawyer 00:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see outside references; and the "seems a bit un-NPOV" is not a valid reason for deletion.  It's a reason to improve the article.  NPOV is only a possible reason for deletion if it would be impossible to write the article in a neutral way.  So there are no valid reasons for deletion cited, which means the article defaults to keep. -- As a general rule, if you're not 100% sure, I suggest taking it to the article's talk page rather than AfD.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  00:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I do know that AfD is not for discussion on how to improve the article. The reviews were the main thing. The three sources listed are a self-reference to the book itself, what looks to be a PDF version of the book, and a website selling the book. None of those seem like reliable sources to me. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, but the article isn't about "the book". It's about the concept of chaotics.  If the book were the subject of the article then the sources wouldn't be reliable -- but it isn't so it's hard to see that they aren't.  I do share your NPOV concerns but I don't feel they're sufficient grounds for deletion.-- S Marshall   Talk / Cont  14:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, the topic of the article is the chaotics. But I still don't see how this topic is notable if it is only mentioned in the book that introduced it. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 18:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I created this article as the two Chaotics founders are very noteworthy and this new set of strategic business behaviors is quite timely given the current economic situation. My apologies if I was too early with this as the book in which it is explored in detail has yet to be published.  As there is a lot of offline buzz about this in the business community, I'm sure it will translate into many more online sources in the next month or two as the book is launched.  In the meantime, perhaps the references to Chaotics "the book" could be removed.  This was not intended to be about the book, instead I thought the concept and new school of thought are very helpful for today's new business management times.  My belief is that it is worth keeping and updating as it grows. Lucase (talk) 08:46, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak keep marginally notable neologism. Sufficient sources appear to exist. JJL (talk) 00:50, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See above please. NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) 01:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment per gsearch I still feel weak keep is appropriate. JJL (talk) 01:44, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * 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.