Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Workflow recovery

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, as no-one has attempted to refute that this can be verified. Deletion of this version does not prejudice against a verified article being created in this one's place. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Workflow recovery (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

For one thing, this seems to fail WP:SELF, with such lines as: "Workflow is a model of an ordered sequence of activities that invoke operations from partners of workflow process; each activity reads some input objects (variables) and write some output objects (effect objects). Objects are defined within the workflow model. Workflow doesn't contain any states and values of objects — these are found in an instance of the workflow." It also fails WP:OR unquestionably, since no external sources are cited or even mentioned. It may, in fact, be nonsense. I found this in a list of articles needing "copyediting," but upon three readings I could not even determine what this article is meant to be about, so I am moving it here. Charlie 07:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Also, can someone with a better knowledge of WP templating than me fix this so it does not appear as a subsection of the preceding AFD? Charlie 07:38, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't see any problems - may have already been fixed. --Sigma 7 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Well, it certainly failed WP:V as is, but that said it might well be a real term in some field (human resources? project management?). I'd say the article could be salvaged if its given a non-jargon context from an out-of-world perspective, and some citation to prove it wasn't something made up in school one day. If those things don't occur, then weak delete. -Markeer 13:32, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. This is word salad: Workflow is a model of an ordered sequence of activities that invoke operations from partners of workflow process; each activity reads some input objects (variables) and write some output objects (effect objects). Objects are defined within the workflow model. Workflow doesn't contain any states and values of objects — these are found in an instance of the workflow. Is it possible to be less concrete? - Smerdis of Tlön 14:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep or merge Workflow is a significant concept in the design of business processes and software to support those processes, and this article is about handling errors that occur in the execution of a workflow process. That said, this article is totally lacking in context and fairly unreadable, so at the least drastic cleanup is needed. Can someone who knows more about the subject clarify whether "workflow recovery" is really the most common term for this and if there's enough to say about it to merit a separate article as opposed to a section in the workflow article? Pinball22 15:58, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There aren't any references or context, and it was difficult for me to find out what was going on. In addition, it's may be more suitable to create a subsection within workflow once it's possible to meet article criteria. --Sigma 7 21:51, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and cleanup. An important concept, but horribly presented in its current form. Maddy626 09:52, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete The article is terrible as it stands, needs quite a bit of work, especially with WP:V. SkierRMH 23:37, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Important topic. Just needs improvement. Nunquam Dormio 18:35, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. All of these "business process" articles, with their "inputs", "outputs", and "processes", seem to me to be abstract to the point of evasiveness. While I will admit that there are people out there who earn their bread by talking in this way, I am not really convinced that any of these articles really has an actual subject to be about. - Smerdis of Tlön 22:02, 24 December 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.