Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Corporate strategy development method

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 of the debate was nobody declared anything; relisted on 15 April AfD page. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 14:29, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate_strategy_development_method, Organization design, Business planning

I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A spin-off from Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering, which is some people mistaking Wikipedia for their university webhost. I've also added Organization design and Business planning to this nomination, which are basically more of the same. Delete all articles as original research (WP:OR); plus Wikipedia is not a management textbook. The authors are advised to save the content locally and contribute it to Wikibooks instead. Sandstein 05:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The project is now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering. Sandstein 05:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination retracted. Sandstein 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with SP-KP that some contextual analysis could be entered in the entries of the Method Engineering Wikipedia Project, but I see no reason why this whole project and all the articles should be deleted (according to the opinion of Sandstein). Wikipedia is indeed a free web host and a Wikiproject such as the scientific-based Method Engineering helps to reach the much-wanted high quality on Wikipedia. I see absolutely no reason to delete this, just because of the fact that it is a scientific-based project. Written by Dwolfs 12:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, but you are mistaken. The consensually accepted policy WP:NOT states clearly that Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and nothing else. I hasten to assure you that we value your contributions to the encyclopedia. As per the consensually accepted policy WP:NOR, though, original research is forbidden. Please read those links. Sandstein 12:16, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering are not original research (as stated in WP:NOR) - they're all based on primary (and secondary) sources as is required by the same guideline. In other words, all the information as stated in the Wiki's of the project are verifiable as requested in WP:V. Furthermore, in the guidelines depicted in WP:NOT in indeed states that 'Wikipedia is not a free host, blog, or webspace provider.', but the Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering does not violate this rule, considering the fact that it is not used for user pages of file storage areas. Thus, I still see no reason to delete either the Wiki on Business planning or the Wikipedia:WikiProject Method engineering. Dwolfs 12:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most articles at the Wikiproject are indeed not original research, and I've retracted my nomination to delete the project page. The three articles at issue here, however, are WP:OR insofar as they seem to propose a method for specific business activities in a "how-to" manner, instead of encyclopedically describing a specific notable standard procedure. Maybe this could be amended, but note that WP:NOT also states that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In particular, it says that Wikipedia is not for "Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice ( legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s." Maybe Wikibooks would be more suitable than Wikipedia for this content. Sandstein 15:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not yet convinced that these three articles deserve separate treatment from the project as a whole. I propose we move the discussion to the project deletion proposal. SP-KP 18:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a happy ending after all, considering the fact that Sandstein retracted his nomination to delete the project page. Dwolfs 18:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a "hold on" comment there though. We still need to work this one through. I'd be interested in your thoughts on the concerns I've raised at the project deletion proposal. SP-KP 19:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do think that the Wikiproject and its articles (specifically, the three at issue here) merit separate discussion. The Wikiproject now seems (to me) to be a bona fide attempt to organise encyclopedic contributions. As such, it can stay even if many of its articles need verification, cleanup or deletion, as you noted in the MfD discussion. Let's focus on these articles' issues here. Sandstein 19:41, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Am I right in saying that the deletion proposal for these three articles can be withdrawn? So we can focus on the points for improvent in style, content or maybe even language? Dwolfs 08:30, 12 April 2006 (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.