Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data resource management

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 merge to Data administration. Daniel 09:38, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Data resource management

This has been a stub for almost 2 years. It is possible somebody could write an article about this topic, but if nobody has done so in 2 years, we should just drop it. If somebody wants to come along later and write the article, it's easy enough to recreate. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 23:26, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I expanded the article a bit (though it's still basically a stub), but after some though, I'd say merge into data administration (or visa versa; no preference in direction). The usage of the two terms is virtually identical, and PC Magazine treats them as equivalent (linky). I don't think the article is likely to grow substantially, but after merging we should have a decent stub which could be expanded a bit. — xDanielx ^T/_C 21:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletions. --Gavin Collins 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)--[reply]
Delete as non-notable neogolism, akin to Data knowledge management, Knowledge resource management, Enterprise resource management etc., etc. --Gavin Collins 22:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't really consider it a neologism, since no individual source claims inventorship of the term of art. So I think the subject is notable, though not the term -- but you're certainly right that we already have too many redundant articles of very similar (and broad) scope. — xDanielx ^T/_C 06:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: data models to facilitate data sharing between different systems, particularly in a corporate context. Whether or not it's a neologism, it strikes me as too airily abstract to support an article, and suggest that this article has been inserted to lend credibility to a consultancy of some sort. - Smerdis of Tlön 16:26, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Data administration. Need for cleanup/expansion is not a reason to delete an article... --W.marsh 19:09, 17 October 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.