Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goal setting

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. –MuZemike 03:05, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Goal setting

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

Vague subject with minimal (if any) reliable sourcing. Largely original research and not much else. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:17, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or redirect to Goal) essay/OR. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Merge (see below). --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - OR, as per above. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Mainly original research; the topic itself, however, could merit an article. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If the topic deserves an article but the present content is somehow unsuitable, then the solution would normally be to rewrite it rather than delete it. Michael Hardy (talk) 22:13, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Why not just move the original research to the talk page and replace it with this stub? Goal setting is an organizational behavior topic that goes back to Taylor and it certainly merits an article. -- Pnm (talk) 06:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Great notability as there are hundreds of books devoted to this topic. The rest is a matter of article improvement in accordance with our editing policy. The current draft actually provides inline citations and its critics don't seem to have read closely enough to observe this or follow them up. Their opinion is therefore worthless. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It's entirely unnecessary and bordering on WP:NPA to characterize others' opinions as "worthless," and does nothing to bolster your argument. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 18:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination is a claim that this substantial article is worthless to us and so should be deleted. Per WP:SAUCE, it is therefore in order to assess the value of the nomination and doing so is necessarily our purpose here. This nomination declares this to be a vague topic with minimal sourcing. But where is the evidence? When we inspect the article, we find that its topic is a clear and substantial one and that it cites respectable sources such as Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and Task Motivation — a good survey of the field which was published in the respectable journal American Psychologist. The nomination therefore appears to be counter-factual and so seems of no value. Q.E.D. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At its current state, there is little to be pared down to, and that is probably adequately covered at Goal. If more, sourced information comes along, then the article can be recreated. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 12:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Goal#Goal management in organizations. That is basically what this article is about, goals and their connotations to businesses. I do not yet see a reason why this should be a separate article, and it is an essay that proves a thesis. The rest of this article is a mainly unencyclopedic fluff, and that portion contains no citations whatsoever. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article before us has no special focus upon business and it would not be sensible to narrow the focus in this way as goal setting is a feature of most activities. The suggested article section is inferior to the current article as it only contains one allusion to a source and has little else to recommend it. Better to stick with what we have and improve it. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From the fourth paragraph on, this is all about goals in a company setting. Agree that sourcing issues remain, but all of the provided sources support the particular sections on goals in companies. I see no reason why we would not be better off salvaging any content to the main article. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 20:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree that any salvageable material here should be merged to Goal. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rewrite, to indicate the various overlapping meaning is management, psychology, etc. Merging to Goal is much too broad and will be even more confusing than the represent article. DGG ( talk ) 03:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I began adding citations to goal-setting theory which is a candidate to replace the uncited content in goal setting. I'd support a merge. After trying to cite goal setting my conclusion is that much of it is too vague to be verifiable. --Pnm (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that this is also a good candidate to have this content merged into, even better than my prior suggestion. --Fiftytwo thirty (talk) 19:43, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the massive coverage "goal setting" gets deals with that theory. In fact, only a small fraction mention it as a theory. [1]. I'm against any merge over there. Dream Focus 01:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True: goal setting has been popularized. This merge is more appropriate: goal-setting theory into goal setting. --Pnm (talk) 03:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If you spend just a few brief moments clicking the Google search links at the top of the AFD, you will see that Google news has 32,600 results, Google books has 6,750 results, and Google scholar shows 147,000 results. This is a commonly used term, and I don't see it used for anything other than the concept mentioned in the article. Dream Focus 01:56, 2 June 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.