Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business control systems

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 -Djsasso (talk) 22:23, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business control systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Poorly written, orphaned, unreferenced, and I suspect not a notable or commonly used concept. Jfire (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- the wub "?!" 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Agree that it's probably not notable and even if it were there's nothing in the article to save. Wikidemo (talk) 00:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Resolute 19:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, vehemently. Original research, as pointed. Pitiful writing: scarcely intelligible, abstract to the point of meaninglessness, vague to the point of evasiveness, so bad that it's hard to choose a brief excerpt to mock. Suggest that it is designed to create additional conspicuousness for a buzzword as a part of some sort of stealth spam campaign. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Merge The article has been written around an analogy with process control. The general concept is definitely out there but this title and analogy are not especially popular. Perhaps merge with Management Science, Management Information Systems, Management cybernetics or Decision Support Systems Colonel Warden (talk) 23:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is an essay, pure and simple (and a poor one at that). It would be hard to merge any of this content into related topics Murtoa (talk) 03:21, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as this is original research which fails WP:V.--Gavin Collins (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2008 (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.