Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Operational intelligence

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 draftify‎. I see consensus against keeping the article in mainspace, and support for moving it to draft. Owen× ☎ 23:02, 29 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Operational intelligence

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

18-year-old article that reads far more like an essay, is devoid of sources or further reading materials, has no substantial improvements over the years. Effectively unsalvageable even though the term itself is notable and important. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Computing. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 17:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This doesn't look bad enough to justify WP:TNT to me. The subject trivially meets WP:GNG, as the nomination notes. Per WP:ATD, the existing content can be stubbified in favor of deletion if improvements are not forthcoming. Suriname0 (talk) 17:47, 1 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unless someone comes forward to try to rescue this mess, I'm afraid that it's better to start over. Ping me if you're making a real effort. Bearian (talk) 14:32, 2 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not a substitute for cleanup. Nomination indicates the term is notable. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:16, 4 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star Mississippi 00:57, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - While I agree with the sentiment that the term itself is notable and important, the problem is the term's broadness. It's not a specific thing, like a book. It's possible to write prose describing this term in different ways. The definition may be substantively different from person to person, industry to industry. I'd argue that due to the lack of any sourcing to support it's current definition that the current state of the article is functionally WP:OR. In this way, while WP:N dictates that The absence of sources or citations in a Wikipedia article <...> does not indicate that a subject is not notable... editors are strongly encouraged to... consider the possibility that sources may still exist, I think the encyclopedia is benefited more with deletion and allowing an interested editor start from scratch (and some sources). I toyed with the idea of trying to find a source to swap to a Keep vote to stubify, but I admit I don't believe I have the research skill for such a non-specific term. —Sirdog (talk) 06:35, 8 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:38, 15 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. I see discussion of this in some books, so it's better to provide an opportunity for growth rather than to delete what exists entirely. BD2412 T 03:12, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per BD2412. TheLongTone edited for grammar, but apparently and understandably has given up. Bearian (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I got the feeling that sensitive copyediting could reduce this to an empty page...TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, GrabUp - Talk 21:27, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. The subject seems really interesting but the article itself doesn't deliver anything. It also doesn't have any references, only one mention of a podcast. I'm sure there are better quality sources exploring the concept. Until then it should be a draft. Paprikaiser (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2025 (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.