Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community 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 Keep. Colonel Warden took the initiative to make improvements, and User:Codehydro followed with substantial addition of content. Mandsford 19:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Community management

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced statement of the obvious (community management is management of communities? Never!) that exists primarily as a WP:COATRACK on which to hang promotion of a conference (now removed). Unpromising WP:COI origins but the subject may be savable with a complete rewrite. Guy (Help!) 00:02, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't understand this article at all. Pure marketingese BS. Someone needs to make sense of it if they want to keep this article around.Dondegroovily (talk) 05:38, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:DICTIONARY. Keep, as the rewritten article does seem encyclopedic enough for inclusion. Guoguo12 --Talk-- 18:57, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Such irony. I have rewritten the article as suggested by the nomination and our editing policy. Use of the delete function was not required. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:01, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Expand and keep or merge if another name exists. This is not an advert from what I can tell. It seems to be a fundamental concept to prevent the tragedy of the commons. Perhaps the article should be merged and redirected to there if it is unable to stand alone, but it seems possible to expand. Indeed, this article describes the type of management of Wikipedia itself, which is managed by the Wikipedia community. The only thing is that it is written in a way that is too narrow since communities are no longer local with the internet. I suspect there may be another term for this but I can't seem to find one. —CodeHydro 13:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I was bold and merged and redirected a former orphaned article Common pool problem into here since the subject matter seemed to be related. —CodeHydro 18:58, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Community management is taught in relevant college classes. Google Book search has hundreds of results, but I didn't bother looking through any of them since common sense alone should keep this article. There are ample government studies on community management, it a key issue in elections, and I honestly can't image that some people have never heard of this concept. Dream Focus 04:46, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A reasonably documented article which should be kept. No longer a stub. --DThomsen8 (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The article under discussion here has been flagged for {{rescue}} by the Article Rescue Squadron. SnottyWong ^speak 00:21, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Snowball Keep per outstanding improvements by the Colonel and Codehydro. FeydHuxtable (talk) 17:18, 12 September 2010 (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.