Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Innovation management


 * 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   no consensus.  MBisanz  talk 02:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Innovation management

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

This article may constitute a failed attempt to promote a particular product/website (there is no to generate the intended hyperlink). The article is written in corporate newspeak, making it inaccessible to a lay audience and not able to be generalised for the purposes of a general-interest encyclopedia. Richard Cavell (talk) 06:30, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.   -- Raven1977 (talk) 07:07, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 *  Comment Keep - I agree with your description of this article, but it does seem to be a legitimate field that can also be studied at university . Somno (talk) 07:29, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Article establishes notability and makes sense now so changed !vote to "keep". Thanks Arsenikk. Somno (talk) 00:32, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete as notability has not been established and some sort of spammy Conflict of Interest is also apparent.Boston (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What about all the books on this term that I linked to above - they don't establish notability? Somno (talk) 08:16, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep Personally I have taken two university courses in innovation management, so there is little doubt as to that the topic exists and is notable. I agree that the article is not particularly well written, and I have attempted a copyedit to try to make it a bit more comprehensive, but due to lack of time I can't go around searching for references. I don't have much faith in the current reference, since it is merely advertisement for a company (though it doesn't seem to be directly incorrect). Arsenikk (talk)  17:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Addendum I have expanded the article, and added references to three published books, all among the vast collection of material available on innovation management. I hope this sets aside any doubt as to the titanic selection of material available on the subject at hand, and thus underlines the topics application to both WP:N and WP:R. I believe all the nominators rationales have been seen to, and I hope there is understanding that poor quality of prose cannot be used as a valid argument for deletion. Arsenikk (talk)  22:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I am leaning towards !voting keep, but now the article has been rewritten, I don't understand much of it (e.g. "Innovation management seeks to foster a repetitive process of response to opportunity"). I would attempt to fix this myself, but I think I'd just confuse the topic even more. Is it possible for you to rewrite the article to be more accessible to a general audience? Apologies if I'm asking too much. Somno (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried rewriting the article again (same content, different wording). Hope this is a lot more comprehendable. Arsenikk (talk)  11:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete, vehemently. Innovation management focuses on the process of innovation, and is normally adapted by manager, and can be applied to both product and organizational innovation.  In other words, if you can't find what you're looking for, you aren't looking in the right place. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete An essentially empty article. DGG (talk) 05:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article is rewritten and I removed the first questionable source. There is no doubt "Innovation management" is a notable subject, and it seems to me this is the one thing that really counts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - It is a notable topic. Arsenikk has improved it and now it is a well-referenced article which meets the notability criteria.  Otolemur crassicaudatus  (talk) 20:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep A subject with three textbooks referenced currently. II  | (t - c) 09:33, 11 December 2008 (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.