Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMART 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   keep. Albeit with regret and resignation to a future filled with bullshit. —Tom Morris (talk) 14:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

SMART criteria

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article appears to be little more than an overblown dictionary definition of the sort of useless management-speak that people use when they have nothing relevant to say. The article tells us that "There is no clear consensus about precisely what the five or seven keywords mean", which seems to be borne out by the editing history, which seems to consist largely of unsourced addition and deletion of keywords. The only references are to a couple of management-speak manuals. Not notable. Not encyclopaedic material. Not worth keeping... AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:18, 29 November 2011 (UTC)


 * keep. Very commonly used term. A number of references were deleted in May 2011. If anything, the article should be improved, but definitely kept. -- Dandv ( talk &#124; contribs ) 04:36, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A "very commonly used term" it might possibly be (though you offer no evidence) - but why does it merit an article? See WP:NOTDICTIONARY. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:45, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

"Keep" Worthy of an article because it is still in use and these guidelines are helpful. Just ask a nursing student... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdxmomazon (talk • contribs) 14:33, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, it's management speak. However it's also notable management speak, and worthy of an article. It's widely used and long-established. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 30 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. This is just the kind of management bollocks-speak that makes me happy that I no longer work for a corporation, but it is, unfortunately, notable bollocks-speak that many people have to suffer. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

"Keep" Our company (publicly traded Fortune 500) has actually been citing this Wikipedia article regularly over the past couple weeks as we build out GTM plans. I can see how there may be a sentiment around it being "useless management speak", but I would argue that the intent of this model is to move away from goals and objectives that are unattainable or unintelligible and move towards a more execution oriented framework. There is some debate over the terminology, but believe the edits are still directionally correct and the article is useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.129.224.36 (talk) 00:50, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, though while you "move towards a more execution oriented framework" I've got work to do. ;-)
 * If this article is going to be kept, can I at least ask those supporting its retention to do something about the sourcing - with the endless revisions to the 'terms', it may no longer actually correspond at all to what they say. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep I found the article a useful alternative to a web search that gave me a variety of sources wanting to sell me their version. In my case, I plan to use the information to help people set individual fitness and weight loss goals.  It may be a cliche management term but it is easy to teach and learn, and is therefore a usefull tool for many applications.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreys (talk • contribs) 16:26, 5 December 2011 (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.