Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 Points of interest related to Business on Wikipedia 
Portal - Category - WikiProject - Stubs - Deletions - Cleanup
Deletion Sorting
Project
Project page (talk)
Lists (by ABC)
Lists (by topic)
AfD: Today, Yesterday
edit · changes

This is a collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Business. It is one of many deletion lists coordinated by WikiProject Deletion sorting.

You can help maintain the list on this page:

  • To add a new AfD discussion (once it has already been opened on WP:AFD):
  • Edit this page and add {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PageName}} to the top of the list. Replace "PageName" with the relevant article name, i.e. the one on the existing AFD discussion. When you save the page, the discussion will automatically appear.
  • You can also tag the AfD by adding {{subst:delsort|Business}}<small>—~~~~</small> to it, which will inform users that it has been listed here.
  • There are a few scripts and tools that can make this easier.
  • Closed AfD discussions are automatically removed by a bot.
  • You can also add and remove links to other discussions (prod, CfD, TfD etc.) related to Business.

Please note that adding an AfD to, or removing it from, this page does not add it to, or remove it from, the main page at WP:AFD. If you want to nominate an article for deletion, go through the process on that page, before adding it to this page.

For further information see Wikipedia's deletion policy and WP:AfD for general information about Articles for Deletion, including a list of article deletions sorted by day of nomination.


Archive Relevant archived discussions (starting from September 2007) may be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business/archive.
Purge page cache Watch this page


Contents

[edit] Business

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. John254 01:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Goodheart - Willcox Publishing Company

Goodheart - Willcox Publishing Company (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Couple reasons for the nomination: 1. The article reads too much like an advert, even after some removal of advert-type content in the history. 2. Not sure that the company satisfies WP:N/WP:CORP. #1 ghit is company webpage, #2 is the article here, #3-5 are related to the company webpage, and the rest I can see appear to be more like passing references. In addition, article is completely orphaned. (If consensus is "keep", would suggest stubbing article back down to bare bones to remove advert content.) umrguy42 22:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. I added some references. --Eastmain (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Eastmain (talk) 16:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, I went through and removed advertisement-style content, obviously skimming down the content to the bone; half the page was contact info, the other main section blatant superlatives excessively describing fuzzy attributes of the products. As for the references, they seem to be alright, satisfying WP:CORP. Arsenikk (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Squirrel Horn

Squirrel Horn (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article asserts mild notability but completely unsourced. Ghits don't throw up any reliable sources, just on-line retailers and forum postings. Happy to withdraw if RS can be found to substantiate notability. ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Akaza Research

Akaza Research (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Non-notable company, spammy article. ukexpat (talk) 19:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Delete seems like an advertisement also non notable. BigDuncTalk 19:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Also, there are several third party source, and I am in the process of adding more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idegtev (talk • contribs) 19:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

It is the largest free (open-source) clinical trials software available. To clinical researchers it is certainly notable. I need time to edit it to conform to guidelines. It has already been accused of not being notable by someone who didn't read it, but after he did he decided that it was and kept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Idegtev (talk • contribs) 19:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep – For now! The article was created less than 2 hours ago! At the very most it should have been {PROD} tagged. The article states Notability has added references. (Though I have not had a chance to check-out yet). We should at least give our contributors time enough to finish a piece before we recommend it for deletion. ShoesssS Talk 19:58, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment – I am letting my Keep opinion stand! The article as of today is, in my mind, well written – sourced – referenced and has established Notability. In addition, in my research, I was able to find additional news articles concerning the company, as shown here [1], that the author may want to utilize for reference material in the piece. Good luck to you. ShoesssS Talk 18:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment - Thanks for your help, I will be including more sources as the article is just bare bones as of now. I really appreciate it. Idegtev (talk) 18:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:14, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • That page may meet Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. It does nothing but promote some entity and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Alexius08 is welcome to talk about his contributions. 23:03, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I agree with Shoesss, they're obviously still working on this. Granted, it's a blatant COI, but it has a lot of sources that make it look like it may be notable regardless. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete. A non-consumer business without a public face, this is apparently some sort of consultancy providing data management services for medical clinical tests. Conflict of interest problems have already been noted. Several of the references do not seem to actually mention this business, and none of them seem to be in general interest publications. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 16:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Which doesn't mention it? I do not think there is a conflict of interest I am making this in my own time and I am not a part of the company, just helping out during the summer. I am doing this from my house during my own time. There is a client website that specifically mentions OpenClinica, and you may feel free to search yourself. Again, OpenClinica is an open source program, freely available for download. The consulting services are provided for those who need them. 66.31.48.63 (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Even your comments here sound like an advertisement we have read the article and know what it is. BigDuncTalk 19:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Ok, then can someone explain why this article exists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase_Forward Phase Forward is in the same industry Akaza is in, and a simple Google search came up with an article for it in Wikipedia. Following your logic, this must also be advertisement. All of their sources are from press releases and most of the article focuses on the former CEO. It is obviously more developed but they have also undoubtedly had much more time to do so. The Akaza entry has been up for two days... Just want to see what you guys think. Thanks. Idegtev (talk) 16:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
While WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to keep an article, they do appear to be a public company, which Akaza does not appear to be. Could this be the difference? — BradV 16:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Also before it was mentioned that my comments sounded like advertisement. Again, I have absolutely nothing to advertise, I am a college student who is helping out. The money I earn is from making databases during the summer, this was my idea and I am the only one who is working on this. I mention that OpenClinica is free simply because I believe that is what is notable about Akaza. The firm's income is based around support for the product to those that need it and different licensing. To use the previous example, Phase Forward provides a similar product but it is not open source. My only "interest" is in successfully making my first Wikipedia article, which is why I am even bothering to argue for this. Idegtev (talk) 17:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It still reads like an advertisement, but there are sufficient sources to allow for improving the article. BradV 15:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 17:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Just wanted to make another note about notability. Bio-IT World recently had an article about Akaza and OpenClinica. The core difference between the open-source model and the other EDC's is discussed. The article can be found here: http://www.bio-itworld.com/ecliniqua/2008/06/02/akaza-openclinica-no-cost-edc.html?terms=open+source Thanks for your consideration, I am still working on the entry. Idegtev (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I wanted to mention that I was the person who first tried to speedy this -- although I beg to differ mildly with the creator's suggestion that I hadn't read it. What got me to remove my own tag in the first place was the suggestion that this is the best-supported open source software for clinical trials; once I gave it some thought, I felt that that was more notable than I had first considered. And, coincidentally, a colleague pointed out a symposium in my home city on precisely this sort of topic, which means it's getting considerable academic attention. Yes, the original article was a COI, but I felt this individual was trying to work within COI boundaries, had adequately disclosed, and was in a very good position to provide the most useful information and resources. I do think this is an important topic and I'd like to see this article kept and added to. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment See, for instance, [2] this link, which indicates the level of academic interest in this area. Accounting4Taste:talk 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Weak keep and Desperately in need of a cleanuprewrite. It's far too spammy for an encyclopaedia article, and could be better sourced if it was truly notable. Once that's done, we can have another look at it. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at cleaning it up: it reads like it could have come from the Akaza Research or OpenClinica website, and now believe it needs to be completely re-written. Ohconfucius (talk) 03:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment Can you give me more suggestions on how to make it sound more like a Wikipedia article? Originally parts of it were indeed from the website, but it has been totally rewritten since then, in fact about an hour since it was first put online. It now contains mostly third party facts, as well as my own description of the company and Openclinica. What do you feel needs to be removed? Idegtev (talk) 16:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment OpenClinica seems, to me, to be more notable than Akaza Research. Is there any possibility of making the software into the basic topic of the article - essentially starting over with an OpenClinica article? Tim Ross (talk) 19:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Article features some truly crap, press-release-sounding prose, but a need for cleanup is no rationale to delete. Sourced enough to satisfy our guidelines. Ford MF (talk) 23:43, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
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. John254 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Income statement

Income statement (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article unsourced since 2003 Foggy Morning (talk) 02:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep: the reason stated above does not meet any of the reasons for deletion - see WP:Deletion_policy#Reasons_for_deletion the policy. Only article that cannot possibly be sourced, or for which all attempts have failed, meet those criteria. This article is definitely a candidate for improvement, but not for deletion.--Gregalton (talk) 07:19, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Source it or delete it, Gregalton. Everything in Wikipedia needs to be verifiable. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. A fairly well written article on an obviously worthy subject, whose chief defect was to have been begun when we were less careful about sourcing than we are now. -
How do you know if its accurate if it's unsourced?--Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Speedy keep. I don't see any legitimate deletion rationale here. This is a notable and encyclopedic topic, and the article has many incoming links (as well as versions in 27 other languages). Klausness (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it's an important topic with incoming langauge links. But is it accurate and correct?--Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you need to review WP:DEL#REASON. Not having reliable sources is 'not a deletion reason. "Article for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify it have failed" is the closest thing at WP:DEL#REASON, and that definitely doesn't apply to this article. Klausness (talk)
  • Wikify and Keep - I satisfies WP:N I'm sure that it can be sourced... I'm not even going to look as there will be millions of articles, news, blogs etc...etc...on this subject. It just needs to be inproved. --Pmedema (talk) 16:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
But it hasn't been improved for YEARS. And it might well contain some very inaccurate information. It's not clear. Why keep it? --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Klausness (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, but sources would be nice. --GHcool (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong keep. Do a quick search and you'll find lots of sources. Should have been tagged appropriately, not nominated for deletion. I suggest nominator review deletion policy, specifically DEL and BEFORE. Celarnor Talk to me 19:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. This is a basic accounting topic - if it's deleted now, someone's simply going to have to create it again at some point. The current text needs a lot of work, but it does provide some useful basic information. It seems better to fix what we have, than to scrap it completely and start from scratch. EastTN (talk) 21:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. I don't understand that makes this article so beyond redemption that it needs deleting. If the nominator feels the article needs sources, I'd encourage him to be bold and fix it. AnthonyUK (talk) 22:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, important business topic, just needs cites not deletion. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete WP:NOR. This article is a mess and is an embarassment to wikipedia. But allow recreation if somebody wishes to source it. Yahel Guhan 01:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, Yahel Guhan. The information is a mess and is unsourced and an embarassment to Wikipedia. I agree WP:NOR applies here. --Foggy Morning (talk) 02:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. The fact that an article is unverified just isn't a reason to delete it. If you don't like the article's current contents, reduce it to a stub or something--since this would be quickly recreated if it were deleted (and it won't be) that would give you the same outcome without this totally useless afd.P4k (talk) 03:10, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy/Strong Keep WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, WP:V and WP:RS are not satisfactory reasons for deletion. 95% of articles on Wikipedia would be deleted if that were the case. I encourage the nominator to understand and read Wiki's deletion policies, which revolve mainly around WP:NOTABILITY. GizzaDiscuss © 06:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment. Note that nom has also nominated Operating expense for deletion. That also seems to be an acceptable article that's just missing references. Klausness (talk) 07:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Improve: I nominate this article. And every other one.--Gregalton (talk) 11:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep: This article is notable and should be kept, improved and correctly sourced. Lachambre (talk) 11:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
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.
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. John254 02:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Operating expense

Operating expense (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Article unsourced since origination in 2004. Foggy Morning (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep. As with Income statement, this seems to be a perfectly reasonable accounting topic (with plenty of incoming links and versions in other languages). Sure, it could use some references, but that's not a reason for deletion (see WP:DEL). Klausness (talk) 16:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Klausness (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, important business topic. KleenupKrew (talk) 00:54, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Suggest delete per WP:NOR. Unverified article contents. --Foggy Morning (talk) 03:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
How is this original research? The only problem I see here is missing references. "Unverified article contents" is not a deletion reason. WP:V says that article contents must be verifiable, not that they must be verified. Unverified but verifiable article contents are a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Klausness (talk) 07:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Similar situation to Income statement. The may have original research or be missing sources but that is a reason for cleanup, not deletion. Deletion only depends on notability/verfiability, not to be confused with as Klausness points out, with verified. GizzaDiscuss © 07:25, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, as per comments by others: does not meet criteria for deletion. Perhaps the nominator wishes to start a new process, articles for improvement, and set up a bot to flag all articles.--Gregalton (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Articles about business subjects — at least, articles that aren't about dodgy neologisms and are written in concrete, intelligible English — strike me as somewhat scarce, and deserving of every encouragement. They aren't really exciting, so it's unsurprising that it's gotten few edits since 2004. Sourcing requirements were nowhere near as specific then as they are today. No reason to delete this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep There's no doubting the notability of the article, and it is capable of being referenced. All it needs is for someone to take the time and add citations. AnthonyUK (talk) 21:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
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.


[edit] Businesspeople

[edit] Russ Fradin

Russ Fradin (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View AfD)

Probably fails WP:BIO. Involved with two successful small companies, but should be merged into pages for those companies, if they are notable themselves. - Snouter

  • Comment. There is another Russell Fradin who works as an executive, not to be confused with this one. - Snouter
  • Delete, unless someone can dig up some material on the man himself receiving public focus. - Vianello (talk) 23:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:COATRACK, failure to provide any evidence of notability. Corvus cornixtalk 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep I wish people would not vote "delete" or "keep" on the basis of what is currently on a page. If you don't know a field, at least google the topic. Lots of lousy pages are improved over time if they are left up. This one made me just curious enough to type :"Russ Fradin" Adify , into google and news google. This guy is clearly attracting real attention as an individual entrepreneur. Unfortunately , I don't know enoughh about this business to write it up. It seems clear that he deserves an article. keep and put up needs improvement. Needs A LOT of improvement.Elan26 (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2008 (UTC)Elan26
  • Delete per WP:V and WP:BIO. Article can be recreated if and when reliable sources that establish notability are compiled. (Having an immediatist philosophy, my personal opinion is that we absolutely should be judging articles "on the basis of what is currently on the page". Deletion until a proper article can be written is not a big deal.) — Satori Son 18:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Neutral. I first voted delete, then keep when I saw there were news sources. I added a few. But honestly, most of the sources more demonstrate the notability of the company mentioned, Adify, than the man himself, who seems notable only in his position as president of the company. No source provided anything resembling biographic detail beyond that. Probably the best course of action would be to create an Adify article and redirect Russ Fradlin to that. I'd create the Adify article myself, but I've no mind for business topics, and after reading six news articles, I still couldn't possibly tell you what exactly Adify was in the business of. Ford MF (talk) 22:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
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. SynergeticMaggot 00:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Holleyman

This article should be deleted because it lacks information about an unknown, unless it is expanded by someone who knows a lot about the man this article is dedicated to. Furthermore, any additional information should be backed by credible sources. Voice of Reason 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that the information provided in this article is explicitly implied in the one concerning the Business Software Alliance. So there's no need to retain this really short article. Voice of Reason 20:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. As it stands, it isn't worth keeping, but the fellow is very notable indeed. He has had quite a legal career before landing at the BSA. I will try and put something up in the next day or two, but will not oppose a deletion until we have enough on an article. The stub is pretty useless. Ohconfucius 10:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC) Strong keep. Article has now been rewritten. No doubts at all about his notability. Ohconfucius 03:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - Subject looks notable enough to me, anyway. Dugwiki 17:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 03:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geoff McIntosh

subject is not notable per vanity piece by non notable person WP:VAIN 56Ghits for "Geoff McIntosh" + binary. Article is suspected autobiography, as info is unverifiable (User:GeeMac per WP:V and WP:AUTO Ohconfucius 05:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete - reads like an autobiography, not particularly notable. Leuko 08:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete, WP:NOT a resume host site. NawlinWiki 14:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete Per above. 11kowrom 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete --Peta 05:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a public resume repository. Dsreyn 16:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
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.
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. - Mailer Diablo 06:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Liane Ricci

Self written article, I don't think the subject is notable enough for her own article. talk to JD wants e-mail 14:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete, unsourced, nothing in article indicating that anyone in the art world considers her to be notable (i.e., showings, works in museums, etc). NawlinWiki 15:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete the show at Susan Eley Fine Artis verifiable but she was just one of three artists. Not yet notable enough. Dlyons493 Talk 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
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.

[edit] Businesspeople Proposed deletion



for occasional archiving