Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Relationship Approach to Systems Development: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 18:23, 12 April 2022

Latest revision as of 23:31, 25 March 2023

Line 27:

::'''Comment''' I've <s>slept through</s> attended many meetings and PowerPoint seminars where language like that was not only acceptable, but expected. Surprisingly, in context, much of it tends to make sense. But our article shouldn't regurgitate slide show language, no. --[[User:Dhartung|Dhartung]] | [[User talk:Dhartung|Talk]] 06:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

:::I like how much of it can be rearranged without any noticable difference in meaning. For example, would the bit I quoted above mean something different if it said "''...global usability, regional flexibility, and localized functionality''"? Or any combination thereof? I'm sorta glad I don't understand this article at all. [[User:Starblind|Andrew Lenahan]] - <b><span style="color:#FF0000;">St</span><span style="color:#FF5500;">ar</span><span style="color:#FF8000;">bli</span><span style="color:#FFC000;">nd</span></b> 22:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. This is the best example of marketese mumbo-jumbo I've read in a while. Articles in the English Wikipedia should really be in Standard English, and they should be about things whose notability is clear and verified with attribution to reliable sources. Edited to add: I am a writer. I am a ''professional'' writer. If I handed in an project that was written like this, I would be fired on the spot. --[[User:Charlene.fic|<fontspan colorstyle="color: blue"; font-family: face="Matisse ITC;">Charlene</fontspan>]] 06:15, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. 0 ghits, no sources, advert, not verifiable, original research, poor tone.-'''[[User:HisSpaceResearch|h i s]]''' ^{''[[User talk:HisSpaceResearch|s p a c e]]''} _{'''[[Special:Contributions/HisSpaceResearch|r e s e a r c h]]'''} 10:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. Non-notable. Spam. -- [[User:RHaworth|RHaworth]] 10:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete'''. An object lesson in why editors with a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest]] should not write articles. [[User:Kim dent brown|<fontspan facestyle="color: #339922; font-family: century gothic" color="#339922;">Kim Dent-Brown</fontspan>]] [[User talk:Kim dent brown|<fontspan facestyle="color: #339922; font-family: century gothic"; font-size="1": color="#339922x-small;">^{(Talk to me)}</fontspan>]] 13:36, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*Vehement '''delete'''. A classic example of [[WP:BOLLOCKS|complete bollocks]]. Indeed, my pathetic attempt to state the obvious in abstract, padded malarkey seems dull and uninspired compared to this masterpiece. Perhaps this is [[BJAODN]] material. - [[User:Ihcoyc|Smerdis of Tlön]] 14:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', per many of the above arguments, esp. [[User:Kim dent brown]]. I'll change my !vote if the article is substantially rewritten to be more comprehensible to the average reader. At the very minimum, it needs a clear novice-level introduction explaining the notability of the subject. The details could be in an expert section. But it shouldn't be a [[WP:NOT#GUIDE|how to]] guide. [[User:Flyguy649|Flyguy649]] [[User talk:Flyguy649|^talk]] [[Special:Contributions/Flyguy649|_contribs]] 15:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', pile of VSCA. [[User:Iterator12n|Iterator12n]] <fontspan colorstyle="color: Blue;"><span style="font-size: 0.8em;">^{[[User Talk:Iterator12n|<span style="color: Blue;">Talk</span>]]}</span></fontspan> 04:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

*'''Delete''', per the deletes above. [[User:Darrenhusted|Darrenhusted]] 12:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a [[Wikipedia:Deletion review|deletion review]]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div>