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 redirect to Information management. Consensus is that this could be merged somewhere else, but there's no clear agreement where to and seemingly no great enthusiasm for doing it. This redirect is an interim solution.  Sandstein  10:04, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Data gathering and representation techniques (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

No context for this at all, which means it contains pretty much no useful information. This is made worse by the completely mangled English ("The probability distribution techniques are utilized to portray that shapes compatible with the information created amid a quantitative risk analysis" - what?). I don't see that any of this article is useful. Black Kite (talk) 01:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I declined a Prod request on this and a number of similar articles that cited the rough English, as I did not believe it to be totally incomprehensible. But most of these articles don't have enough content to make them worth keeping. Additionally most lack sufficient coverage in reliable secondary sources to establish a credible claim to encyclopedic notability. It might be worth an attempt to combine some of the others into a single AfD. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:01, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge, tentatively, to some general project management article ...see my comment, next. --doncram 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The article has too general a title. It is apparently an attempt to cover the topic of data gathering and representation FOR PROJECT MANAGEMENT, but it doesn't say so in the title and further it fails to go into anything project-management related (perhaps where data is about tasks and sequencing matters and so on, as needed for PERT/CPM modeling). It reminds me that I participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (2nd nomination), where "Keep" was the decision taken, and correctly so. It was agreed that it is okay/good to cover, within Wikipedia, the body of knowledge about project management that has been developed. With caveat: as long as it is written and organized encyclopedically, and that includes using article titles that make sense. It could be reasonable to have an article like this split out of bigger articles, but I don't currently see where this fits in, and since it has little real content I would be inclined to merge it back to wherever it does fit in. If there is a whole series of articles that have been split out unnecessarily, or set up independently, could we discuss that here, now? Rather than encouraging a slew of AFDs on them, I bet they could be addressed by editing, perhaps involving some merger proposals. And there could be some overall organizing discussion at some central location, perhaps Talk:Project management? I don't see a WikiProject specifically focused on this topic area (it seems to fall within WikiProject Business, WikiProject Computing / Software, WikiProject Engineering, and WikiProject Systems. AFDs would be unnecessarily adversarial, I think. Ad Orientem, could you comment more please? --doncram 21:03, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment perhaps redirect to Information management, as it seems to be the same thing as Project Information Management? Smmurphy^(Talk) 21:16, 4 May 2017 (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.