Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mar-Kov Computer Systems: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Mar-Kov Computer Systems: delete |
→Mar-Kov Computer Systems: comment and question |
||
Line 17:
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Canada|list of Canada-related deletion discussions]]. </small><small>—[[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 01:31, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
*<small>'''Note''': This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Computers|list of Computers-related deletion discussions]]. </small><small>—[[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)</small>
::*'''Question/comment'''. (meant non-contfrontationally) I'm curious as to what you mean by the comment that tech companies need strong indicia. Are you saying the standard should be different for tech than other companies? I only partly agree with your comment about "solutions." Yes, using an otherwise wonderful word in that way as marketing speak is a pox on the language. But if one swallows that, I don't think it's POV. It's just a synonym for "software that addresses a business or process function." It's only by insisting that "solutions" retain its primary meaning, that a problem is successfully and fully resolved, that it becomes POV.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 15:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' per nom. [[User:Shawn in Montreal|Shawn in Montreal]] ([[User talk:Shawn in Montreal|talk]]) 01:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
*'''Delete''' - couldn't see any notability here. The fairness argument that a company should be included if its competitors are has appeal but I don't agree. We're here to foster knowledge in the world, not to create a marketplace. There's a close cousin to that argument that does work...if we cover 90% of a subject we ought to cover the other 10% because otherwise the gap is unencyclopedic. It really depends on the nature and shape of a business. If there is a small number of companies in a field, and if the field is such that really understanding the field requires us to know each of the competitors, it makes sense to describe them all one way or another. If there are an indefinite number, or if a complete list isn't really essential, no reason to do it just out of fairness.[[User:Wikidemo|Wikidemo]] ([[User talk:Wikidemo|talk]]) 15:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
| |||