Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisation's goals


 * 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. An editorial solution involving merging and redirecting can possibly be found through more discussion.  Sandstein  20:29, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Organisation's goals

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article begins as an absurd stating the obvious: "Organisation's goals means the goals of an organisation". The rest of the article summarises one author's theories about organisational roles but this gives undue weight to a single book. Remove that and you're left with the lead which is void of any useful content. Pichpich (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Martynas Patasius (talk) 18:05, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment. Concerning the definition, perhaps "tautological" was meant instead of "absurd". Sure, much of definition in this case can be guessed from the name, and thus the first sentence is mostly used to give internal links (although it should be noted that the definition is not actually "Organisation's goals means the goals of an organisation", but "Organisational goals – the goals that the organisation tries to achieve, intentions on which the organisation's decisions and actions are based.", which is also based on the source). I don't see what is supposed to be so bad about that. As for undue weight, first of all I am not quite sure what other view was not given due weight. It looks like it is possible to find some other articles (like, Ravi S. Achrol, Michael J. Etzel, "The Structure of Reseller Goals and Performance in Marketing Channels", "Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science", Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 146-163) that cite Mintzberg's opinion about organisational goals (concerning some point), even confirm it, but do not seem to give anything specific as a serious alternative to it. But if there is an alternative, I don't see why it can't be included. Speaking of which, I do not see how undue weight alone as such (even if present) is supposed to be a reason for deletion, since it can usually be corrected by giving other views due weight (complete removal of some view would be in order if the due weight was "zero", which hasn't been demonstrated here, at the very least), or somewhat mitigated by tagging. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * With only a single author's point of view, this stops being an article and becomes an essay. Please remember that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Pichpich (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Special:PermanentLink/847546457, part about personal essays says: "Personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic (rather than the opinions of experts).". But every single sentence in the article gives opinion of an expert (namely Mintzberg), not a single one relies on my own feelings on a subject. Likewise, it says "Wikipedia is not a place to publish your own thoughts and analyses or to publish new information." - and the article does not publish my own thoughts, but Mintzberg's. And, of course, they are not new.
 * Likewise, No original research (Special:PermanentLink/848168425) says: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist.". That's what that part of "Wikipedia is not" is talking about. And, of course, sourced articles like this one do not contradict that policy.
 * For that matter, do you think the article would suddenly become suitable if it would get a new sentence like "Such concentration on achieving one goal has been confirmed for resellers." (with the reference I mentioned previously)? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Keep. Looks like no valid reason for deletion has been presented and after short discussion with nominator it doesn't look like some valid reason is still waiting in reserve. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:23, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   15:52, 3 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 14:32, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * comment What I'm reading isn't about the subject per se; it's about some subset of Henry Mintzberg's organizational theories. I don't know how his ideas fit into the larger scheme of things, especially whether he is the originator/spokesman for one particular tradition/whatever of organizational theory, or whether there is one common set of ideas of which his are a component. But at any rate, what's written here needs to go somewhere else besides here, and I am leaning towards deleting this rather than having it redirect to the result of a merge. But I need someone who knows the field better to resolve this. Mangoe (talk) 16:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge selectively to Henry Mintzberg (which looks to have its own problems), then Redirect not to Mintzberg, but to mission statement, which is very near to what this page purports to be about (but is in fact about Mintzberg's ideas). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 18:43, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't articles Goal or Organization be better targets for redirection (should it be chosen)? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 21:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't have a particularly strong opinion, but mission statement starts with the definition "A mission statement is a short statement of an organization's purpose, identifying the goal of its operations", which seems to combine "organization" and "goals" sufficient to make it my preferred target. &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 22:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's a significant difference: for example, Wikipedia can have goals like not letting some law to be passed, but the mission is just creation of an encyclopedia... Thus such a redirect might be misleading... Anyway, since you wrote "which is very near to what this page purports to be about (but is in fact about Mintzberg's ideas).", maybe you do know some alternative to those ideas? Random sources I have found (now listed in the article) do not seem to discuss any serious alternatives, but it would be interesting to find out about them, if they exist. --Martynas Patasius (talk) 00:45, 13 July 2018 (UTC)
 * For that matter, wouldn't those articles be better targets for merging as well (in case merging is chosen)? --Martynas Patasius (talk) 13:42, 15 July 2018 (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.