Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orchestrator (strategy)

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. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 21:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orchestrator (strategy)

Orchestrator (strategy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Rules of engagement (strategy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Prime Directive (strategy) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Strategic campaign (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Bumped from the COI noticeboard. Non-obvious but pure corporate vanity, as the creator Mike Cline (talk • contribs) is vice president of the company who made this stuff up (you're going to have to trust me on this one, as the evidence conveniently disappeared while it was on the noticeboard). John Warden is the president. Sources are self-published, notability is scarce. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process. MER-C 11:23, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Comments from creator of articles

Please consider my comments on discussion page--Mike Cline 14:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

_{I have moved his comments here - some may not think to look on the AFD talk page CosmicPenguin (Talk) 18:52, 18 February 2007 (UTC)}

My name is Mike Cline, I indeed work for a company that teaches and practices the concepts the four articles up for deletion embody. [1] I created the articles in good faith well before the COI was raised. Once the COI was raised I acknowledged it and ceased any work on the articles—therefore they are indeed incomplete and at this point, poorly referenced. The first deletion comment states—“of the company that made this stuff up.” That is not only untrue, but shows a complete lack of understanding of the subject matter of the articles. All these terms are widely used in the context of strategy and have long histories. For example the idea of Strategic Campaign was first introduced by Sun Tzu in “The Art of War. (6th Century BC). At the simplest level, google searches for the terms when associated with the word “strategy” return a remarkable number of hits

• Orchestration (strategy) (749,000+)
• Prime Directive (strategy) (77,000+)
• Rule of Engagement (strategy) (10,000+)
• Strategic campaign (63,000+)

Below are just a few specific references that use terms in the context of strategy.

• The Air Campaign - Online
• PERFORMANCE OF THE B–2 BOMBER IN THE KOSOVO AIR CAMPAIGN
• How To Command and Control a War
• Evolution of Air Power
• The Eagle in the Desert
• The Changing eStrategy Context

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Doug Bell ^talk 10:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

• Other comments
• Keep per Mike Cline. Jtrainor 02:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete all as per nom ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:05, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
• Strong delete The concepts themselves are certainly notable, and may or may not be worth real articles--they are surely covered in a number of places on WP--but not in the present context. Since the articles talk about them primarily in terms of the services provided by the company, principally the book Winning In FastTime, apparently published for the company by a vanity press, they are all primarily advertising. An attempt to piggyback commercial spam on dictdefs. DGG 04:55, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. I checked the history for each one and read each one. What was that term MER-C used recently ... Vanispamcruftisement! (a.k.a. WP:VSCA.) Perfect. — Athænara ✉ 12:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per DGG. Perhaps valid articles could be written on this topic, but this is not it. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 12:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep Articles can clearly be re-written with NPOV. Subjects are notable per references provided.--65.255.197.162 03:37, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Keep and improve subjects notable enough --RockerballAustralia 08:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete as spam. IF someone can rewrite the articles in a context beyond advertising one company and product by the end of this debate AND provide reliable sources I am prepared to reconsider. However, the sources have to be about the subject, clearly discussing the theory, unlike those given above so far which appear to be random pages generated by entering the title into Google. Nuttah68 14:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Please --Oceanside 21:08, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Keep these articles. All of the above are notable strategy topic, and can be improved to NPOV status easily. They are well researched and are a great example of strategic planning in action as well as in concept. I find them to be very sound

• Delete the article is trivial, says nothing and is very poorly sourced. If there is something useful, merge. it looks like an attempt to plug the book. NBeale 11:00, 2 March 2007 (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.