Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gathering (decision making)

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. Sr 13 00:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gathering (decision making)[edit]

Expired then restored prod. My original prod reason was "It's either a POV essay advocating Panocracy, or a very overlong dictionary definition. No sources in any case." User:John Talbut has made a good-faith effort to source the page, but I feel that the other concerns still stand. The page should still be deleted, or perhaps redirected to either Panocracy or Co-Counselling International.

The problem is that the term "gather" is really generic. If this article is about the generic sense of the term, then it's a really long dicdef that should be deleted. If it's about a specialized procedure called "gathering," then two out of three of the sources don't seem to apply - they're using the word "Gather" in the normal sense. That leaves John Talbut's own book. If this procedure isn't used outside of Co-Counselling International, then it can be effectively merged there.

Moreover... the article doesn't actually say anything. This may be more a quality issue than a deletion rationale, but it reads like marketing copy. Lines like "An outcome of gathering is that everyone involved effectively acknowledges the positions of everyone else," or "Gathering supports a problem solving approach to resolving issues," (as opposed to a problem-making approach to solving issues?), or "Gathering can support multiple outcomes and even action in the face of dissent." (How? Any suggestions?) It seems like this entire article could be condensed into "In a Gathering, everyone voices their own opinions, and works together to find a consensus. Everyone is free to do what they like afterward, though they should now at least know what others think." SnowFire 01:21, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think we should use "gathering" to decide the fate of this article. It's either original research or banal redundancy. Yechiel Man 04:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, nothing found in a search with co-terms like "facilitator". --Dhartung | Talk 07:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the first two references are to other (analogous) uses of the term 'gathering', which is speculated to be the source of the term under discussion. The third reference is to a brief web-based source by the original author of this Wikipedia article. In other words no independent sources are being cited for the subject, and I could find none on a half-hour search. Kim Dent-Brown ^{(Talk to me)} 10:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletions. -- John Vandenberg 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as complete bollocks. I really ought to become a management consultant. When I put my mind to the task, I can expatiate at great length at blindingly obvious concepts. That's all I see here: a mess of rhetorical tautologies whipped into a very long text by making the abstract nouns chase each other's tails. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:34, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete managementconsultantcruft Bigdaddy1981 18:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retain I presume that someone not liking an idea or wanting to rubbish it are not grounds for an article to be deleted.

Otherwise, the objections to the article seem to be based on misunderstandings. This could be because the article is not well written. However, the statements quoted seem to me to be in plain English and mean exactly what they say. So I wonder if the difficulty is unfamiliarity with group processes and decision making. By the way, I have some 20 years experience in training and group facilitation preceded by 20 years in management (in the British coal mining industry) all alongside active involvement in politics so I think I have some grounds for knowing what I am talking about.

First, what the article is about. It is headed “Gathering (decision making)” and it commences with the words “Gathering is a procedure” so I do not understand why there should be any confusion with a generic use of the word “gather”. As to the references, the full quotation from Heron (1999) (which, by the way, was first published as "Dimensions of Facilitator Style" in 1977) is:

“Gathering the sense of the meeting. There is no formal vote. After a full airing of views, the chairperson gathers the sense of the meeting into a proposed decision. If there is expressed dissent from this proposal, the discussion continues. The chairperson then gathers the sense of the meeting into a second proposal. The process continues until the gathered sense is assented to. Someone else may gather the sense of the meeting, and put it to the chair; especially if the sense is eluding the chairperson. Note that final assent here may include both positive assent and negative assent, the latter being a willingness to accede to a still disliked proposal.”

That does not seem to me to be using the word “gather” in the “normal” sense, it is very close to the sense used in the Wikipedia article. Also the phrase “gather the sense of the Meeting” is used by the Quakers again in the sense of the article. I have an unpublished paper by the person who taught me the method, who says the he first heard of the method from John Heron, which describes the method more or less as it is in the Wikipedia article. However, the point about the third reference is simply the date, in other words the method in exactly the form described in the article was published in 1997.

And no, the method is not exclusive to Co-Counselling international. I have introduced it into several other organisations. As the article says, and should be clear from understanding the method, it is widely applicable.

Maybe an example will help. Consider a neighbourhood meeting, a meeting of residents of a particular neighbourhood. An issue has been raised about the behaviour of young people in a particular location. After some discussion someone starts a gather which, after any re-gathering if anyone thinks it is necessary, might be something like “None of us think that we know enough about the issue. Two of us have said they would be willing to try to meet some of the young people and find out how they see things. Three of us have said they would try to find out from residents in the area what they think. These members have said that they would try to be in a positions to give more information at our next meeting. One of us suggests fitting CCTV with support from another while three of us said that they were opposed to this.”

This could constitute a decision and the members would just note this, or minute if that is what is done, and proceed to other business. Alternatively, members may think that they need to discuss the matter more and proceed to do so until someone starts another gather.

This is a complex yet common type of problem. Democratic or consensus procedures are based around a proposal and what typically happens in a situation like this is that it would become a debate, or even a struggle, around one proposal, like fitting CCTV, and other possibilities would not be considered.

So I do not see the objection to "An outcome of gathering is that everyone involved effectively acknowledges the positions of everyone else,". The meeting notes, in a summary, all the points of view that have been expressed. It is not just that the views have been expressed, they are formally noted by the whole meeting.

"Gathering supports a problem solving approach to resolving issues," seems clear. The key steps in problem solving are problem analysis and solution generation. By putting a premium on gathering all the information, needs and points of view the procedure clearly supports this. This contrasts with other decision making procedures where there is a premium on suppressing or ignoring anything that is inconvenient to the dominant groups. Although canvassing all points of view is supposed to be good practice in consensus or democratic decision making it is not inherent in either, particularly since both aim to come up with a single decision that purports to be the decision of the whole group.

"Gathering can support multiple outcomes and even action in the face of dissent." The example gave three outcomes, there could have been more. Action in the face of dissent: someone could fit a CCTV system even if most of the group were against it. They would be doing so in the knowledge of the objections and their strength. Conversely if most of the group were in favour of CCTV but a few were very much against it the few could not block a decision nor would they have to give up any of their objection as would be the case in consensus decision making. The majority can take responsibility for going ahead and installing the CCTV.

"It seems like this entire article could be condensed into "In a Gathering, everyone voices their own opinions, and works together to find a consensus. Everyone is free to do what they like afterward, though they should now at least know what others think."" First of all, the group does not work together to find a consensus. The only unanimity required is on a gather. Secondly, everyone is indeed always free to do whatever they like afterwards, what is to stop them? What does stop most people is oppression, the sense that they feel that they do not have choices that objectively they do have. The indoctrination that we are bound by the will of the majority, by the decisions of our elected leaders, by TINA.

This seems an over long response but I want to do justice to the rational objections that have been raised.John Talbut 14:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. JT said: I presume that someone not liking an idea or wanting to rubbish it are not grounds for an article to be deleted. This is correct. However, an article's topic must be notable. Reflexology, for example, is certainly notable psuedoscience, while the layout of 101 Elk Street in Springfield, USA may be true but non-notable. So how many people actually use this technique, and is there verifiable independent literature behind it? If you have in fact "introduced it into several other organisations," that may help a little... but I'm not sure if enough. It seems doubtful that a minor technique used in parts of the U.K. is worthy of standing next to universally known ideas like "democracy" and "range voting." [1]

Also, I don't want to get too much into the merits of your idea, but the fact that it's not obvious that this is actually a "new technique" suggests that it's just not that different from vanilla "let's gather and discuss a problem." Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind, but it's not really worthy of an article any more than Gathering (sports discussion) or Dictator's thought process (decision making). A minor technique similar to other techniques is probably best merged into the conceptually similar articles, while a really different technique might still merit an article even if minor due to there being no place to merge it to. SnowFire 21:37, 13 June 2007 (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.