Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Managing by wire

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2018 December 25.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. Sandstein 09:38, 25 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Managing by wire

[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)

Basically a 1993 academic paper which has sunk pretty-much without trace; 3 or 4 gHits, including the original paper. Tagishsimon (talk) 08:48, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 10:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem important. "Notable", yes? I think not. --Jirangmoon (talk) 11:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - a brief Google Books search turns up a number of references to this management strategy (e.g., 1 2 3 4). Whilst some of these are drive-by references, at least two are significant coverage. I think it just about gets over the line for WP:SIGCOV.FOARP (talk) 16:06, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. This article relies on a single source and is headed by a tag saying it may not meet Wikipedia's General Notability Guidelines. Vorbee (talk) 15:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Check out WP:NEXIST. The article's state is not necessarily correlated with notability or a lack thereof. Also, the presence of a One source template does not qualify deletion in and of itself. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:20, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My own searching finds a bunch of citations back to Haeckel's original paper, and not much beyond that. No prejudice against recreation if better sources, especially sources independent of Haeckel, were found. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 25 December 2018 (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.