Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viable Vision (2nd nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 of the debate was delete. (ESkog)(Talk) 05:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Viable Vision

This is an article that was, pretty much, previous deleted in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Viable Vision. However, it's approach to the topic is less adverty than before, and the article is not really a substantially identical recreation. I'm making this nomination on behalf of User:NickelShoe who I imagine will call by shortly. -Splashtalk 17:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I was actually moving it here from prod on behalf of User:Rob9874, who states on the talk page, "I'm not sure why this is being considered for deletion. Viable Vision is a popular concept with business that utilize TOC methodologies. I would like to see this article stay." This is not the same username as the article's originator. NickelShoe 18:02, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep, clean up, and expand. After further review, Delete. See below. [1]. PJM 18:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • If you're going to rely on nothing but a Google search, please at least construct it properly. All you've just found is every website in the world contain either or both of the words "viable" and "vision". -Splashtalk 18:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately that's not the search I wanted to link (see below). I always try a couple of variations when I'm dealing with a not so unique name or term. Sometimes I find Google to be the best way for me to form an opinion; despite this bad example. PJM 19:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Note further that even the correct Google search is completely irrelevant in pure number terms since the phrase "we have a viable vision" (etc) is all over it. Simple Googlecounting is not a useful tool for this terminology. "Viable Vision" Goldratt on the other hand yields only 240 unique hits (and has less than 1000 to start with, so that problem isn't there either). -Splashtalk 18:31, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Very much a botched job on my part. I meant to link my 2nd search which was [2]. I was under the wrong impression that this Viable Vision was linked to the book and it struck me as something worth expanding. I slipped and fell on this one. Call me human. PJM 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, notability questionable. Lord Bob 02:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete as per Lord Bob Maustrauser 07:20, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete all the rewriting in the world, sadly, does not make it more notable. savidan(talk) (e@) 01:23, 21 February 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.