Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive 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.  Jerry  delusional ¤ kangaroo 00:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Reactive decision making

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

This is the third in a trifecta of articles, which also includes responsible decision making and inactive decision making, all created by the same user, which I think are pointless and non-notable terms. Korny O&#39;Near (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Fortunately, Wikipedia is not an encyclopaedia of things that individual editors subjectively consider to be pointless and non-notable, and Wikipedia's concept of notability is not subjective. You are not making an argument for notability here, and your rationale is a poor one. And even if you were applying Wikipedia's criteria for notability, your opinion would be ill-founded, given that their are plenty of sources on business management that discuss types of decision making such as this, and the reasons that one is used over the other.  One such is ISBN 9780787976361 (an entire book on the subject of decision making) which discusses reactive decision making and the problems that it engenders for a business, in detail on pages 16–17 in a section entitled "Reacting Versus Responding".  Another such is ISBN 9780803955110 which has a section explicitly entitled "reactive decision making" on pages 355–356.  A third is ISBN 9780805847154, which has a section entitled "Proactive and Reactive Decisions" on pages 5–6. There are even papers dealing with these and related subjects on-line on the World Wide Web, such as this one. By policy, we are supposed to look for sources ourselves before nominating articles for deletion on grounds of notability or verifiability.  Had you done so here, you would have turned up the above and many others.  Your nomination was an exceedingly poor one. I've restored Proactive decision making, previously deleted via Proposed Deletion, on the grounds that it actually covers the obverse of this coin, and contains useful content that can be built upon.  Both of these subjects, the one being the obverse of the other, satisfy the Primary Notability Criterion.  They might be better dealt with together (as on-line and off-line are), but that doesn't require deletion in any way.  (Even if Wikipedia's treatment of the subjects is merged, these original titles are sensible redirect titles.)  Keep. Uncle G (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G. John254 07:06, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete no substantial content. The articles don't attempt to be more than a paragraph appropriate to a very elementary textbook, making superficial unsourced value judgments and not giving sources. I don't see them as plausible bases for an article. DGG (talk) 13:45, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * So you don't see Wikipedia discussing proactive and reactive decision making despite the existence of sources explicitly discussing those very things, some of which are cited above? Uncle G (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all three, and leave Proactive decision making deleted too. No one disputes the fact that such decision making modes exist and are discussed in the literature, but having an article dedicated to the phrase "Responsible decision making" makes as much sense as having one for the term "Driving with your eyes open". Uncle G: If you want to add a section in Decision making to discuss these terms, it may make more sense. It currently has a poorly-written section called "Styles and methods of decision making" which definitely needs some serious editing. Owen&times; &#9742;  17:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all three Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently.  This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to Decision making, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles.  Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one.  I would also remind Uncle G to assume good faith when dealing with other editors.  Theseeker4 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment - I also find OwenX's argument persuasive: even if the content would prove to be notable, they would be better in Decision making as a subsection, or even unified in a sourced Decision making concepts if Decision making becomes to large (as per WP:SUMMARY). Uncle G is being WP:OWNy and not seeing that while this content might have value, it doesn't have value as single articles, and that the community already has had successful experiences, such as WP:SUMMARY, to deal with related concepts with an article. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Delete all three No notability is claimed, in fact, no sources are used at all. It is true notability is not subjective, but it is not established by expert opinion, either. Specific, verifiable, claims of notability have to be made by notable reliable sources in the field. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:15, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:OR 'Delete the three. Sounds like someone vomited up a management textbook. StonerDude420 (talk) 07:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment: If you're going to vote delete, at least explain why you think adding Uncle G's references wouldn't help. - Mgm|(talk) 13:08, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Delete all three of these articles as original research and as uninformative bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Weak keep, it can't BOTH be Original Research and a regurgitated management textbook. Uncle has shown potential for expansion, and even if it could be merged somewhere, that's no reason to delete a topic which passes the GNG by itself. Furthermore it's not just a random phrase, many google book hits show it as a topic or subtopic in its own right. For example Quantitative Geography. Weak keep because the article itself is weak right now and not much would be lost by deletion. Pulsaro (talk) 17:35, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep There are hundreds of scholarly references to this. It is therefore a sensible search term and so deletion is quite inappropriate. If the current content is poor then we improve in accordance with our editing policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:18, 24 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.