Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/E3value (2nd nomination)

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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

E3value (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This has been re-created thrice (123) and sent to Proposed Deletion twice (12) since it last went through AFD. The rationales given by Nsk92 and Stifle in the prior AFD discussion do not now apply well enough to comfortably re-delete this as re-creation of deleted content. As can be seen from the article and edits such as these ones, independent sources were added, after both editors commented. Problems of writing in the first person were addressed. (Ironically, the re-created article by Kardell is worse than the original by Pipo489 in this respect. See this diff. But this difference again adds to the fact that this is not exactly the same content, even though it shows that the original content was better.)

This is clearly at the very least a contested Proposed Deletion, and the addressing of the rationales given in the prior AFD discussion by Pipo489 adds substantial doubt to deleting it in line with those rationales. Therefore, I'm bringing NawlinWiki's Proposed Deletion nomination here, for being a contested proposal that should go through an AFD discussion, per the Wikipedia:Proposed Deletion procedure. I reserve my own opinion at this time. Uncle G (talk) 13:25, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• This appears to be another case dependent on your view of the tension between verifiability and notability. Personally, I think a doctoral thesis is a reliable source, and thus information about E3value belongs on Wikipedia; but I think this subject is not notable enough to merit its own article.

  It follows that the outcome should be merge, but since Uncle G is being cagey, I shall be so as well; I reserve my opinion as to where at this time.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 18:50, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No indication of the term or concept being used except by the originator and his company. A concept invented in someone's thesis does not necessarily or even usually make make a good Wikipedia article DGG (talk) 00:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • We agree there! It doesn't make a good article. The question is whether it might make a good footnote or subsection of another article.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 11:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Written like a brochure / white paper, in bizarre marketing-speak and essentially represents an advertisement. Would require a complete rewrite to be even remotely acceptable as an article, and I don't think that would be possible due to sourcing issues and fundamental non-notability of the topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does that apply to this version of the article, too? Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:15, 15 May 2009 (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.