Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matrix of Complex Negotiation


 * 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. going by the acceptance of the delete arguments at the end of the discussion based around close examination of the sources and the weakness of some of the keep arguments the consensus is close enough to delete that it falls within adminstrative discretion. Spartaz Humbug! 20:48, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Matrix of Complex Negotiation

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Original research; no sources indicate that this is a well-known or widely accepted concept. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:02, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep - from the massive list of references, it seems that this concept meets WP:GNG. I've read the few which have internet links, and they use it prominently - whether the rest are false is hard to tell, but based on the two which are accessible, I'd give this is a benefit of the doubt. The article is rubbish, but that's not a reason to delete, and there seems to be more than just a single study to this concept. Claritas § 22:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per Claritas; we need to clean up and rescue this very poorly written article. Bearian (talk) 16:19, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for Rescue by the Article Rescue Squadron.   Snotty Wong   gab 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * CLARIFY: The article under discussion here was tagged for Rescue by User:Bearian in seeking assistance with its improvement.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:39, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak keep - While the subject is notable, the article is terribly written at this point. The list of "further reading" is 10 times longer than the article itself.  In my opinion, the list of further reading should be moved to the talk page as a repository of potential sources, and the article should be stubbed until someone can actually provide some sourced prose.    Snotty Wong   gab 22:49, 12 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete can we verify all these references? many of these references are not specifically about the matrix but negotiation techniques that may involve the matrix eg "An Approach to Visualize the Negotiation Preparation Step". checking google: nothing in gnews, nothing in gbooks, 1hit in gscholar. also in Portuguese, limited for the manual: nothing for gnews, a few hits in gscholar  and 1 hit in gbooks. LibStar (talk) 05:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to find a paper entitled "An Approach to Visualize the Negotiation Preparation Step" using Google Scholar, then that title is what to put in, not the completely different search phrases used in your external links there. Uncle G (talk) 02:01, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * so I have searched, and found nothing but the original conference paper, which is uncited in g scholar00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. It's nothing but a list. 'Article' asserts no facts, cites no sources, and much of it is not even written in complete sentences. Mtiffany71 (talk) 20:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete The sources seems entirely written by the devisers of the techniques, almost all of which were either self-published or published by their own universities. There needs to be some evidence that it has been widely adopted more generally, or at least widely discussed more generally, by third parties. If kept, the list should of course be trimmed to the essential ones, which would normally be the books plus whatever is the best material among the internet publications.    DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * So, too, was this article itself. The searches that I did to improve the citations turned up the consultancy that many of these people work for, which the account name of the article's creator unambiguously denotes. Uncle G (talk) 05:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Weak delete - As DGG said, though many of the sources do exist and do pertain to the topic, most, if not all, are written or contributed to in some way by the creator of the technique. Though a badly written article is no reason to delete an article, a list of research papers written by one person does not exactly establish verifiability or notability. — Parent5446 ☯ ([ msg] email) 20:47, 17 July 2010 (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.