| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Foresight (management) redirect. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
ProD
editI am removing the ProD notice, since i am not the author of the content (whose substance derives from an illegitimate hybrid of Dab and multi-stub article that i merely split 3 ways), and contribs show i was the only one notified by the ProDer at the time of tagging. The edit history of the accompanying stub consisted, at the time of ProDing, of two entries, the first of which clearly stated that the material has an edit history that remains with that of another page. I'm disappointed and embarrassed that our collective commitment to concern about attribution is so flimsy that such an elementary inspection could fail to occur prior to ProDing.
It is also my opinion that where a ref does not provide an online-source, ProD is improper without an indication that the concern "Insufficient sources on which to base a full article" is more than a guess based on what the author cited: IMO "Insufficient sources on which to base a full article, based on skimming the only source cited" suffices but the actual concern stated here does not.
If the first shortcoming i've mentioned were the only one, i would say
- My reason for removal is purely procedural, and i would consider compliance with the instruction "If this template is removed, it should not be replaced." overly fastidious, and encourage the original or another ProDer to re-ProD after giving proper notice to the true author.
In our actual situation, i think the combination of the two deficiencies would raise sufficient legitimate concern among evaluators of WP that we should apply the Caesar's wife#above suspicion principle, and any further move toward deletion of the accompanying article should involve the full rigor of AfD.
--Jerzy•t 05:25, 6 January 2011 (UTC)