Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Assumption-based planning
- 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. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 18:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original research (it looks like a student essay). Phronima 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. --Phronima 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It is part of 3 entry structure Assumption based planning - Assumption-based planning and Critical Assumption planning. You can't delete Porter 5 forces analysis because it once was a mere research can you? --Wilcovd 12:00, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. In fact, I think Assumption based planning should be merged into THIS article; this one is appropriately named (they hyphen is used correctly here) and is better written. I have no idea what "looks like a student essay" means; don't all articles look that way when they're first written? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mangojuice (talk • contribs) 12:44, April 13, 2006.
- No, most don't. Just zis Guy you know? 12:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Then maybe I'm not clear on what is meant by this criticism. Is this meant to mean it's original research? I think being mentioned in Harvard Business Review (see the other article, assumption based planning) shows that the idea has attracted some attention. Nonetheless, I retract my "strong keep"; that was based on the idea that of the two articles currently existing, this is the better one. I still say weak keep as the content of the two articles together looks important enough and verifiable to me. Mangojuice 13:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Tricky. The term gets <1000 ghits, but one of them is a book by the same title from Cambridge University Press - on the other hand, there is preciouslittle evidence that this term is much used. It originates within RAND Corporation, apparently. I'd say if anything here is truly verifiable it could go in an article on the theory's originator, James A. Dewar, if we had one, otherwise it's "just another management theory", of which there is no shortage. This article is, by the looks of it, not much more than a synopsis of Rand's two books on the subject. So delete this. Userfy is also an option, if it's wanted for reference, and if the author wants ot create an article on Dewar, and can show that he meets WP:BIO, I would encourage them to do so. A three-entry structure on a term drawn from one author's books seems a bit excessive, mind! Just zis Guy you know? 12:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The term assumption-based planning was indeed used in the book, but there seem to be several "similar" methods of assumption based planning, e.g. Critical assumption planning, 'discovery driven planning' and 'milestone planning'.
- Delete. A blizzard of tautologies and vacuous abstractions: that kind of prose gives me a headache. Smerdis of Tlön 14:27, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete process-cruft...--Isotope23 16:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Can somebody explain to me what the difference is between writing about a planning method like assumption-based planning and a writing about any other planning method varying from strategic planning (e.g. BCG matix, 5-forces model) to wikipedia's entry about the business plan (which more or less follows the New Venture method and does not follow other "business plan" methods.). Where's the border line between keeping and deleting?
- It lies at the point where multiple authors are writing multiple non-trivial works about it, and multiple corporations are using it. Just zis Guy you know? 15:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:NOR. Stifle (talk) 21:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.