Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Organizational configuration (2nd nomination)

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. Delete as inappropriately written content fork. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 10:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational configuration[edit]

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

As 22 months ago, many issues but mostly written like an essay with sourcing, OR and POV issues. It was suggested it could be fixed but it's been barely touched since. There's already an article organizational structure on essentially the same topic without these issues. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 02:46, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve the prose. I regret that I cannot do more in working on improving articles like this myself, but I find its all I can do to respond to attempts to delete them. The organizational structure article is reasonably good, but its a very general article about all sort of organization. This one is really about Business organizational configuration, a fairly restricted subset of the total possibilities. There is no deadline on improvements. The deWP has been known to delete articles based on the quality of the writing, but we don't have enough skilled writers that such a practice would leave much of an encyclopedia. It is not all that unreasonable, after all, for articles about business topics to be written in business jargon. Articles about politics have their jargon also, as does each of the sports. To me, this is considerably more readable than any of our long articles on football or cricket. DGG ( talk ) 05:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is a distinction between jargon, which may be unavoidable, and patter, a glib performance meant to create a false impression of substance --- in other words, bullshit. The instant article is full of vague verbal performances that seem calculated to impress, but to which no certain meaning can be ascribed:

Today’s companies are faced with strategic tasks emerging from the international operating environment. The ability to respond to those tasks is usually constrained by their internal capabilities, which are shaped by the company’s administrative heritage. The administrative heritage can be defined as “the path by which it developed- its organizational history- and the values, norms, and practices of its management- its management culture.” Every company is influenced by these. It consists of many aspects of a company’s past such as home-country culture, history, and the influence of specific individuals. “Collectively, these factors constitute a company’s administrative heritage.”

Let's use Mickey's Diner as a test case. Explain the "strategic tasks" this company faces, and how they "emerge from the international operating environment." Phrases like this sound important, but that's all they do; the inappropriate level of abstraction empties them of meaning. There are also odd, random bits of original research:

Three basic organizational configurations: centralization, decentralization, and coordination have been common using between companies around the world. Centralized hub is focusing on the objective of global efficiency rather than local responsiveness and decision making is made by headquarter; the primary Japanese characteristic of business operating structure is centralized configuration. On the other hand, decentralized federation companies are willing to delegate more operating independence and strategic freedom to their subsidiaries. Decision making is decided by local subsidiaries to adapt general situations and satisfy regional consumers’ needs; most European firms prefer to function this model. In addition, coordinated federation is compromising these two hubs and creating a different idea to perform business; U.S style of companies is the basic idea of coordinated federation. The feature of this model is the subsidiaries autonomy to deal with local markets but strong ties to the central companies, facilitates substantial feedback for improving efficiency among the subsidiaries.

All of this makes rather surprising, if vague, claims. And yes, quality of writing is especially important in fields like these; there are hosts of trivial variations on various management theories. New labels are being constantly supplied for old ideas in an attempt to claim a new catchphrase as a brand. It does seem that such meaningful content as might be on this page is indeed redundant to organizational structure; that too discusses the advantage and disadvantages of various configurations and levels of centralization. Much of the discussion here is original research, again, and not really well suited to being preserved by merger either. It isn't "bad writing" broadly defined: prose designed to promote, mislead, or confuse may be "good writing" if it succeeds at those goals; but it's "bad" for an encyclopedia and does not belong here. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:49, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Essay-like, jargon-ridden (I agree with Smerdis that this is a case of vague waffle rather than technical terms) and from the reference list largely derived from two books by three particular authors. If the subject were not covered otherwise, it might be worth letting this linger on in the hope that one day someone might improve it, but Organizational structure covers the same ground much better. JohnCD (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2012 (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.