- 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 Keep JERRY talk contribs 04:42, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Case interview (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
Wikipedia is not a dictionary Wikipedia:NOT#DICTIONARY nor Wikipedia:NOT#GUIDE. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference. Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- … which can potentially have an article telling readers all about case interviews, for which this article as it stands is a beginning. What makes you think that this is not possible, given the tens if not hundreds of books addressing the subject that appear to exist, in addition to the things pointed to by the article itself? I suggest reading Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Stubs with no possibility for expansion and Wikipedia:Deletion policy to see what you have to demonstrate here at AFD if you want to delete a stub. "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary". Uncle G (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Needs better sourcing and more points of view but is a perfectly serviceable short article and clearly more than a dicdef. Some post-AFD improvements help it even more, but it was fine before. Per Uncle G, "short" is not synonymous with "dictionary entry". --Dhartung | Talk 21:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:26, 12 January 2008 (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.