Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decisional analysis of complex systems (2nd nomination)

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. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Decisional analysis of complex systems

Delete this was nominated a few days ago but the discovery of a copyvio truncated that debate. The copyvio has now been resolved (the source page is now licensed under GFDL - see this. The problems initially identified with the article remain, described by that nominator as: "This bizarrely vague (cf WP:BOLLOCKS) article references only papers by one author and fails WP:RS. It may also be redundant to decision analysis" seems to me rather apt. Carlossuarez46 23:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an essay ("In the current highly complex, changing, and exacting environment, we need more efficient approaches..."). Not enough reliable, third-party sources to verify the information. If the main website used as a reference is owned by the author, then the source is not valid, as it is not third-party. The author should be advised that Wikipedia is not the place to publish his personal findings unless they receive independent coverage. --Boricu æ ddie 00:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep

1/ decisional analysis of complex systems is not redundant as Decision analysis subject is information and decisional analysis of complex systems sujects are decision making and complexity.
2/ The main website used as a reference is not owned by the originator of the method (Janusz Bucki) but by IEGD Institute. On request I can send to you the permission of the author.
3/ See External link that shows that the method BADSc is recognised and is belonging to the public ___domain. Therefore Sources are showing that BADSc method is recognised for more than ten years by french management school HEC (N°1 in France), scientific school as CNAM and by CNRS, which is a branch of the french Ministry of scientific research. Robertatum 08:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not pass notability test as it does not demonstrate significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Links to sources authored by the originators of the theory are not independent, and non-English sources do not belong in English wiki. Gandalf61 09:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? non-English sources do not belong in English wiki. Where is that written? • Lawrence Cohen 13:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I paraphrased (and possibly oversimplified) WP:SOURCE, which says "Because this is the English Wikipedia, for the convenience of our readers, English-language sources should be used in preference to foreign-language sources". Gandalf61 14:25, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply Thank you. Well, based on that, it's certainly valid enough for a stub-length article, if nothing else. So, discounting that discounting non-English sources is nothing more than a suggestion, I say... • Lawrence Cohen 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Fine for a stub length article. • Lawrence Cohen 15:10, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- What we're discussing here is not the article's length, but it's notability. Your comment has nothing to do with the discussion and the concerns raised by the nom and myself. --Boricu æ ddie 22:08, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~~I meant that it seems notable enough for a stub-length article, with that sourcing. • Lawrence Cohen 22:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]
    - Not really. I have created several stubs with more sourcing than that. Also, it's not actually a stub; it has enough sentences to be considered a Start-class article. Therefore, it is quite badly sourced for a Start-class article. --Boricu æ ddie 22:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Change to delete based on the above info. • Lawrence Cohen 22:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I edited decisional analysis of complex systems, I can help you to make fairly your "keep" and "delete" choices by giving some explanations:

1) Vocabulary and grammar: problem solved.
2) Copyright status: article under GFDL licence. On request, other prooves can be shown.
3) Third party: the originator (J. Bucki) is a party; English WP is a party, Robertatum is a party and sources mentioned are independant and are parties as well. So there is a third party. The author of the article is not the owner of the site where it is reproduced and where you can read it is under GFDL licence. The author is neither the owner of the site, neither a member (list mentioned at the bottom of the first page)[1]
4) Writer of the different sources : Of course, there is the originator of the approach but there are several writers: Sylvain Roth (DGA)and Y Pesqueux (HEC) for instance...
5) References and sources langage: "English-langages sources should be used in preference to foreign langages sources" don't mean that only english sources are available. French-langage sources are available too as french langage is recognised as an international langage as well as spanish.
6) Notability: sources show that the specific approach is published by CNRS, by HEC School of Management, ranked Number 1 in Europe, by the scientifique school École Nationale Supérieure des Mines de Paris. A scientific great estabisment, the Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers CNAM, is promoting this approach. ISBN and ISSN numbers are also mentioned.
Robertatum 13:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the current article. I think that an article on this topic is possible, but this article currently needs too much work to fix. I have emailed Robertatum to offer to mentor him for a few weeks. John Vandenberg 12:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I answered John Vandenberg that I agree his offer, even if there is no guarantee or promise that the future article will be validated by English Wikipedia. Up to your convenience, I am ready to be helped to work either on the above mentioned article in order to improve it, either on a new one. On the while, this article can be deleted or kept. Up to you according your interpretation of Wikipedia regulations.

You made the demonstration that Wikipedia is a "complex system" and we are "autonomous agents working together by different ways towards commmun objectives".Robertatum 15:03, 10 September 2007 (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.