Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Proactive decision making


 * 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. JodyBtalk 14:52, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Proactive decision making

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

Contested prod, procedural nomination. I have no opinion on it just yet. Wizardman 23:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't want it deleted, but you nominate it for deletion anyway merely because someone else thinks that it shouldn't be deleted? That's just pointlessly wasting everyone's time, including your own.  I recommend that everyone coming to this discussion read the sources at Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making before wasting too much of that time. &#9786;  Uncle G (talk) 03:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK. WP:AGF, now! That's my reactive decision-making ;) (note that my comment may be neither "rational" nor "advisable," according to that article). MuZemike  ( talk ) 04:56, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Who said anything about bad faith? I said that it was pointless time wasting. Uncle G (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete. Non-notable term. All the contents of this article (currently three sentences' worth) could easily be fit into the decision making article. Korny O&#39;Near (talk)
 * Please read Deletion policy and Article development. We don't delete articles because they are currently stubs.  And there is plentiful evidence of possibilities for expansion laid out at Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making.  I didn't point to it just to exercise my wikitext writing skills, you know. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 04:41, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not saying to delete it because it's short, I'm saying to delete it because I don't think anything notable can be said about the topic, an opinion somewhat confirmed by the article's current small size. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 13:35, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * The size of an article is no indication of anything, apart from a lack of interest by editors in actually writing on a subject. Wikipedia isn't finished.  North Asia, an entire geographic region of the planet, stood as a 2-sentence stub for almost five years.  The true indicators of whether anything can be said on a subject are the existence of sources that document that subject, using which editors (if they decide to actually write about the subject) can build an article; and I cited several at the aforementioned AFD discussion.  (Those are far from the only sources that exist, by the way.)  I repeat: Per Deletion policy, we don't delete expandable stubs.  We expand them.  If you are going around asking for short articles that haven't been expanded yet to be deleted, rather than coming to them and first thinking "How can this be expanded?", then you have not understood nor assimilated Wikipedia editing norms, and the project's philosophy as exemplified by its basic editing and deletion policies.  Please read the policies, and think about them, until our process of Article development becomes apparent. Uncle G (talk) 15:37, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fine, so ignore my comments about the size. I still think it's a non-notable term, and that the article should be deleted. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 16:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Delete This subject is non notable verbage. --Stormbay (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2008 (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.