Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Informational management

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. W.marsh 17:21, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

ATTENTION! If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on a forum, please note that this is not a majority vote, but rather a discussion to establish a consensus among Wikipedia editors on whether a page is suitable for this encyclopedia. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us decide this, and deletion decisions are made on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. Nonetheless, you are welcome to participate and express your opinions. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments by suspected single-purpose accounts can be tagged using {{subst:spa|username}}

[edit] Informational management

Topic appears to be non-notable, original research, produced almost entirely by one editor who has provided no references. Ronz 16:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Not a well-recognized topic within management. No subsequent research by other scholars in the area. Rather, the discussion about IaM was not really mainstream at any time and related issues have been picked up. I will also note that neither of the references were peer-reviewed. It is not good encyclopedia policy to include such articles.

...it is very topical in the UK and SA and has academic acceptance. The references are public domain. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete It says right at the bottom that it's original research. --TheOtherBob 21:29, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

...poor wording since corrected. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Delete Original research, vaguely defined. Google hits for the term did not seem concretely related to the content of this article. Dryman 22:50, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

...12,900 hits/articles show the term is entering common use.Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Although the IaM concept is based on 'orginal' research, what subject isn't? At least at the beginning. Claude Shannon had to start somewhere. The original research for IaM has taken place over 30 years, several continents, many countries and countless companies. It is the result of work by several specialist devotees to the subject of information and has found special favour among all of the original commercial and academic users. I have little doubt that is becoming a key issue to all organisations that are embracing the new philosophies. Due to the nature of the developments and issues of intellectual property rights during the developments (trade marks, patents, copyrights, trade secrets, etc), little public domain documentation was available until now. This will now change because many who have been exposed to Informational Management want to know its difference from Information Management right from the start, hence Wikipedia. The IaM concept as described is not proprietary. References that include rationales and details for IaM that are public domain include: 'Brain' 1975, and 'The future of life and intelligence' 1986? by Victor Serebriakoff - both available from Amazon.com (I will double check dates and add publishers shortly). I will also refine and add more detail as time permits. Considering the excitement it is causing in enterprise / information architecture environments such as TOGAF and X.25, I would have thought the entry would have created a desire to know more, not a desire to consign it to ignominy... Prof 7 13:18, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Google search of "Serebriakoff 'Informational management'" returns no results. --Ronz 16:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

...this term coined after the books were published although the books had the subject as their main theme. See discussion over suitable terms. Prof 7 09:19, 8 November 2006 (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.