Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organisational informatics

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. Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Organisational informatics

Doesn't describe the subject in a way which can be understood by a non-expert. May correspond to a term created by the sole reference, who may also be the principle editor. {{Prod}} removed by an indescrimnent {{prod}}-remover who hasn't left a reason. ~~(It had been 5 days 1 hour when the {{prod}} was removed, so executing the prod might be a valid outcome.)~~ — Arthur Rubin (talk) 13:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May? The nomination's speculation is easily refuted by a search. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Violation of WP:NEO. Ray Yang (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a reason to delete. In any case, the phrase is obviously well-established since a topic appears under this heading in another encyclopedia over 10 years ago, as my search link shows. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:53, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, WP:NEO would be a reason to delete. I'm now not convinced it's accurate. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:39, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NEO policy does not apply to this article. Organisational Informatics is a legitimate, established topic in the Organization Development field. University classes are taught about it. And it is a requirement for certain degree programs. The article may simply need the category changed to Category:Organizational studies and human resource management.

Keep as a real and valid subject for an encyclopedic article. Tagged for expert attention as it's quite difficult to understand. Significantly written about in the wider world - Peripitus (Talk) 12:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per my comment above, this is an established academic topic in the Org Dev ouvre and should be represented in Wikipedia. The article is necessary and I fully agree with Arthur Rubin's adding the expert tag to get help in making the article more readable for laypeople. The category just needs to be corrected. Deebki 19:37, 21 July 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.