Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HRM models


 * 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 Human resource management. Consensus here is split rather evenly to either merge or redirect, so I'll redirect the article, and anything worth merging can be taken from the history of the article. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  00:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

HRM models

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Contested PROD (by creator). Rationale was "Wikipedia is not a place for musings on HR models". The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 13:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete, per WP:OR. Stifle (talk) 14:44, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep. There is a long list of items of what Wikipedia is WP:NOT, but "a place for musings on HR models" is not on that list. So maybe it is, after all, a place for reporting on such musings if found in reliable sources. While the article can and should be improved, it appears that the topic is sufficiently notable. See, e.g.,
 * --Lambiam 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm... WP:NOTAFORUM (point 1), WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE would cover it; we aren't a publisher of original thought, nor are we an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a guide on different HR models. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article summarizes the information given in the sources it cites. How is this different from other articles, such as History of the Roman Empire, Autism spectrum, or Cauliflower? --Lambiam 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tone of this is rather different from the other three, as I'm sure you've noticed; the other three are descriptions akin to what I'd expect in an encyclopedia, whereas this reads like an "Intro to HR" manual ("The epitome of the soft model of human resource management is the creation of a strategic relationship between the employees and the organization" sounds like guidance, not description). That being said, I think Mangoe may be onto something below; I confess I don't know a huge amount about the subject, so I'll leave it to others to determine what's actually useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * --Lambiam 15:27, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Erm... WP:NOTAFORUM (point 1), WP:NOTMANUAL and WP:INDISCRIMINATE would cover it; we aren't a publisher of original thought, nor are we an indiscriminate collection of information. This isn't an encyclopedia article, it's a guide on different HR models. The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい ) 15:45, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The article summarizes the information given in the sources it cites. How is this different from other articles, such as History of the Roman Empire, Autism spectrum, or Cauliflower? --Lambiam 18:33, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tone of this is rather different from the other three, as I'm sure you've noticed; the other three are descriptions akin to what I'd expect in an encyclopedia, whereas this reads like an "Intro to HR" manual ("The epitome of the soft model of human resource management is the creation of a strategic relationship between the employees and the organization" sounds like guidance, not description). That being said, I think Mangoe may be onto something below; I confess I don't know a huge amount about the subject, so I'll leave it to others to determine what's actually useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The tone of this is rather different from the other three, as I'm sure you've noticed; the other three are descriptions akin to what I'd expect in an encyclopedia, whereas this reads like an "Intro to HR" manual ("The epitome of the soft model of human resource management is the creation of a strategic relationship between the employees and the organization" sounds like guidance, not description). That being said, I think Mangoe may be onto something below; I confess I don't know a huge amount about the subject, so I'll leave it to others to determine what's actually useful. The Blade of the Northern Lights  ( 話して下さい ) 18:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 16:03, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * merge to human resource management for now. If this is important, well, the main article doesn't mention it at all, and this is not so long as to overload what is really a pretty short article. At any rate, the current article title is improper. Mangoe (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, "Models of human resource management" is a better title. (.) However, an infelicitous page title is not by itself a ground for deletion. --Lambiam 18:37, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete and redirect to human resource management. More than the title is infelicitous.  We absolutely do not need another vague spinoff article about an extremely abstract and insubstantial side of business management.  This is extremely unspecific:
 * This model emphasize on the usage of the people working in the organization in the same manner as any other resources are used. It enunciates the concept that people should be hired cheaply and must be brewed and makes to work as fully as possible. The essence of the hard model approach is the synergy between the organizational strategies and human resource management.
 * People are brewed? Like coffee?  Or like beer?
 * The theme of soft human resource management model is that people are intangible assets as this valuable resource can not be transacted in terms of selling and buying and their value is beyond the traditional financial codes.People working in the organization are treated in a unique manner as compare to the other resources in the organization.
 * The current text also seems to have neutrality issues; it has warm fuzzies for the "soft" model and hard thornies for the "hard" one. Sooner or later, the other shoe will drop, and you'll find a link here directing you to a management-fad book or consultancy that will help you replace your "hard" approach with the "humanist" soft one.  What else is an article about human resource management to be about, if not a description of the several approaches? - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 19:24, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep per sources cited by user:Lambiam, and then Merge into Human resource management. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Comment - Then add a redirect to Human resource management. Northamerica1000 (talk) 03:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, causa sui (talk) 20:24, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is evidently notable. See, for example, Principles of human resource management, which is one of numerous sources which discuss HRM models and their division into hard and soft forms.  Warden (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to human resource management: it looks already covered in that article which itself is not so long it needs content breaking out into a separate article.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 13:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * merge to human resource management or delete it. Just get rid of it. Articles that of interest to only people in that professions are of little interest to others.MiracleMat (talk) 23:44, 22 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Merge the references and, since the abbreviation is a reasonable search term, redirect. The text of the article is word for word exactly the same as the text in the corresponding sections of the main article, but some useful specific references were added.   DGG ( talk ) 12:27, 25 October 2011 (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.