Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mega planning


 * 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.  MBisanz  talk 02:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Mega planning

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

Essay by one of the chief researchers in this academic area. Clearly needs heavy work to become an encyclopedia article but is it notable. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 22:49, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete essay ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete as a combination of a personal essay and synthesis of referenced material. MuZemike 02:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Lacks inline refefences - "Mega Planning" sounds like a self-coined phrase. Self-promotion? Esasus (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong retain. Mega planning is gaining significant influence in the national security planning community for its ability to contextualize whole-of-government approaches to intervention in terms of measurable, culturally-generalizable objectives by which such intervention is expected to improve the lives of the people and societies it will touch. It is also related to the double- and triple-bottom-line approaches that have gained currency in global business. In my judgment, the article is strong--although I will need to propose an edit due to an error in its use of "operational" vs. strategic or tactical planning, which often occurs in the related scholarship 198.7.238.40 (talk) 19:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Dr. Jim Ellsworth, Professor, U.S. Naval War College (copied from talk page by Stifle)
 * There are lots of buzzwords there, but little reference to Wikipedia policy and guidelines. This AFD discussion deals in the applicability of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, in particular our deletion policy.  It's been asserted above that this article isn't supported by sources, but synthesises sources on other subjects to put forward a novel thesis, in violation of our No original research policy.  That is what you need to address, not how groundbreaking, or significant, or important you personally think this subject to be.  Your personal, subjective, opinion is irrelevant.  This is an encyclopaedia, with objective standards for inclusion and exclusion based upon existing in-depth coverage in published materials by independent people with good reputations for fact checking and accuracy.  Show, with sources, that someone has already documented all of this, and come to the conclusions that the article does, outside of Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 07:14, 31 January 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.