Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inactive decision making

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. — Aitias // discussion 04:25, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inactive decision making (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)

Just as with Responsible decision making, which I just nominated for deletion, I believe this is not a notable term in any academic field; though this one additionally also looks like a neologism. Korny O'Near (talk) 21:24, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Owen× ☎ 17:59, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all three Non-encyclopedic. OwenX says it best, we don't need articles for every possible phrase, even if the phrase is used frequently. This does not fit any criteria for inclusion under Wikipedia's guidelines. Anything here that may need to be kept should be moved to Decision making, but I don't see anything other than essay content, or explanation of an essay really, in any of the three articles. Clear delete of all three, and I am copying this to each one. Theseeker4 (talk) 01:13, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reactive decision making. Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 05:27, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all three of these articles as apparently one man's theory and as uninformative bollocks. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:11, 24 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant usage and is an oxymoron. Decision making is so much simpler when you follow WP:BEFORE and examine the sources. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:41, 24 December 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.