Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Management cockpit


 * 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 delete. sufficient consensus after relisting  DGG ( talk ) 22:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Management cockpit

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Buzzword-fest, no notability asserted, nothing but a dicdef so thick with corporate doubletalk that I don't even know what it's trying to say. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:32, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete  no evidence this is actually a widely used term. The sources provided are limited . In fact clicking on the 2nd source doesn't say anything about this term. LibStar (talk) 15:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, &mdash; Music1201  talk  16:08, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
 * delete: Found a couple of book sources. One is an English language publication by creator here and the other is in a summary of a 2014 Lisbon conference called Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Management Science and Engineering Management (does this infer notability?). See here. I'm not convinced it's the same management cockpit and makes different claims about origins (technically not mutually exclusive). It's poorly sourced and quite arcane. I'm not a fan of much of the management stuff here (maybe just not a fan of management in general?) but at least other articles add information rather than just list the central aspect of the theory. It seems like this is a fringe theory of limited notability perhaps the wrong side of acceptably encyclopaedic. Rayman60 (talk) 22:14, 31 July 2016 (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.