Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PURE goal criteria


 * 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 merge to SMART criteria.  Sandstein  07:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

PURE goal criteria

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Non-notable neologism pushed by various marketing consultants on their blogs and consultancy websites. A Google search revealed no promising hits, but due to the ambiguous term it is extremely difficult to search for it. The given source fails WP:RS. GermanJoe (talk) 05:53, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 06:24, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

*Delete - per WP:NEO, there are a couple of in-field references (how-to articles, rather than more academic or suitable industry sources), it hasn't made it (as far as i can tell) to mainstream news, books or journals. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:54, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 *  Keep  - A changed !vote via Sam's sources. I did amend my search terms with some extra stuff but clearly adding SMART was the key bit. I would strongly suggest the following of his sources . None of the others give it both clearly (apologies) and in detail, mainly due to lack of access, rather than me feeling they don't have it. That said just with what can be accessed gives a fairly clear impression so I'm happy for it to be a keep. If I'm feeling more energetic today I'll try to add some of these to the article, if no-one beats me to it. Nosebagbear (talk) 10:17, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge - I realise I'm somewhat pinging around here, which no doubt is not conducive to the discussion, so apologies. That said, I think the merge as suggested by talk is probably the best solution. I'm not sure whether enough content exists to warrant an extension to the article's name, but that can be decided externally to the AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Alternative search terms:


 * Keep . Try the above alt. searches that combine CLEAR and PURE with the older SMART criteria. If we just look at Google Books hits there are more than ennough to satisfy GNG.       Google Scholar is giving as well.   That last paper by Day and Tosey is cited by 47. Both PURE and CLEAR date back to at least 1996, so NOTNEO does not apply either. Courtesy ping  and . Sam Sailor 07:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC) --Amended below. Sam Sailor 21:44, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   08:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   18:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment (1) - I have checked the listed links, and almost all of them provide only passing mentions or quotes of Whitmore's publication about PURE as an additional set of goals, but do not elaborate on the concept in significant detail. Such numerous mentions are a good argument against WP:NOTNEO, agreed. But without in-depth analysis of the term and its underlying concept these sources still fail to establish notability for a stand-alone article. The term exists and is used by some authors, but Wikipedia is not a dictionary (WP:NOTDICT). GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment (2) - would it be appropriate to simply merge/redirect a brief mention of this term into SMART criteria? All three terms seem very closely connected, both in research and usage as your list of sources clearly indicates. The articles already cross-link each other with significant overlap. Just a random suggestion, but maybe that would be a viable solution to preserve the information without the need for perfect "notability". GermanJoe (talk) 18:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment (cross-posted to WP:Articles for deletion/CLEAR goal criteria): If this article is kept, it may be appropriate to create a navigation template for articles on goal-criteria mnemonics analogous to Template:Medical mnemonics. See also: List of medical mnemonics. How many of these goal-criteria mnemonics are there? I wonder if, who is the top editor of SMART criteria, would care to opine on this deletion discussion? Biogeographist (talk) 21:01, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete this text about a non-notable training-mnemonic of a neologism. I'll not express any value opinions on the merits of such angles in coaching because the subjects' merits are irrelevant to AfDs. If wider notability were there, one could make a case for this kamikaze account-created text to be kept.
 * On Sam Sailor's sources, aka Is Anybody Clicking:


 * 1) The Seven Steps of Effective Coaching: passing mentions of one mnemonic among mnemonics
 * 2) Leading From the Inside Out: one or two passing mentions.
 * 3) Core Curriculum for Occupational and Environmental Health Nursing has no online text to check out
 * 4) The index of Comprehensive Library shows only two mentions. Evidently, it's all about something else.
 * 5) The German-language version of the training manual, which, perversely, keeps the English acronym and its English words for its German users. Not too serious as a source, I'd say.
 * 6) Two and a Half Minutes has one single mention of the mnemonic, bundled with a bunch of others.
 * 7) Or take Coaching and Mentoring for Business : "To identify a goal in a coaching or mentoring context, there are a number of alternatives to SMART", our manual says and goes "e.g. PURE, OPUS, EXACT."
 * This is all very lame. At best, and with generosity, one could suggest a Merge of whatever can be salvaged into "John Whitmore (racing driver)". And since one could so do I. -The Gnome (talk) 11:52, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing to delete or to merge and redirect? Biogeographist (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The subject entirely lacks independent notability, despite the noble effort (and extensive citations) to support it. It should/could be Deleted, per policy. But if a Merge to the article about those mnemonics' main parent is preferred by the AfD participants, as an alternative, I would not object, as it happens. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect both this article and the article on CLEAR goal criteria (see WP:Articles for deletion/CLEAR goal criteria) into a new section of Goal setting titled, e.g., "Criteria" or . As noted above, the available sources are not good enough to support separate articles about these goal-criteria mnemonics. Furthermore, treating all goal-criteria mnemonics in one section of Goal setting will allow for more WP:NPOV treatment of goal criteria. Biogeographist (talk) 12:17, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I changed the suggested redirect target to per 's suggestion. Biogeographist (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * A merge into the related SMART criteria sounds like a fine idea for preserving the material. Sam Sailor 21:44, 23 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.