Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Forming-storming-norming-performing
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. —Korath (Talk) 04:59, Mar 2, 2005 (UTC)
Forming-storming-norming-performing[edit]
I'm not sure what to do with this (other than that it needs a different name). The article is a summary of a book that analyzes team processes. That means it may qualify as original research, or as a how-to guide and therefore Wikisource material (it doesn't seem to be copyvio). Nevertheless, the book and style are in use and can be googled. No vote as yet. Radiant! 10:58, Feb 23, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep - summaries of books are entirely appropriate for articles on a book. Is this a book article? It reads more like a description of a process, so not prescription - David Gerard 14:35, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. Basically a how to. not encyclopedic. -R. fiend 19:54, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Comment:At the very least, a new name is needed. It does get a fair number of hits, so I don't think outright deletion is the best choice. The article needs a cleanup to make it read more like an encyclopedia entry. Carrp | Talk 20:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep, Expand - fairly commonly used model for organizational success... I think there may be a less cumbersome name for it, tho. --BD2412 22:47, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- also, 26,000 google hits, incl. some pages w/extensive history and theory--BD2412 22:51, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep This kind of management-speak nauseates me and I'd never heard this particular term before, but Googling convinces me that this a reasonable article and a reasonable title. It doesn't seem to be a copyvio, either. The cutesy-poo terminology seems to be in very wide use. It is not a book summary; the reference (which I've just added to the article) seems to be: Tuckman, Bruce. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological bulletin, 63, 384-399. This really seems to be the way people refer to the model. See also the not-great article Team; this article seems to have been written completely independently, and uses the same terminology. Perhaps Forming, Storming, Norming, and Performing should be redirects or disambiguations to this article? Dpbsmith (talk) 00:59, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. Sadly, I've heard this term at least twice before, as a reference to a process, not a specific book or article or anything of the like. Android79 03:20, Feb 24, 2005 (UTC)
- Keep. All too common management-speak for team dynamics. Jayjg (talk) 17:27, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Keep and keep at this name (although I'm not so sure about the punctuation). This model for describing team dynamics has expanded past the original analysis and is in very wide use. It is not the only model of team dynamics, however, so it can't neatly be shoe-horned back into that article. By the way, to everyone getting all snotty about the "management-speak". please remember that what appears to be unnecessary jargon from outside the field may be necessary precision of language when inside the field. This term has the same degree of precision to a person studying Organizational Dynamics as, say, Mazlow's Hierarchy of needs has to a person studying psychology or quantum chromodynamics has to a person studying physics. Rossami (talk) 04:51, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.