Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business analyst

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 keep. Mindmatrix 00:51, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Business analyst

A woeful article which has been tagged for cleanup for three weeks and hasn't improved. It is written like a job fair FAQ about what a business analyst does, and won't improve unless threatened with the gun that is AfD. Hopefully someone can pull this off the scrap heap, but at present that is where it belongs. Harro5 09:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki. Not encyclopedic but contains substantial content and links. Durova 17:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Transwiki to where? --Aucaman 18:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
    • The name's been on the tip of my tongue: Wiki has a site for instructional articles. I'd be willing to keep if someone cleans it up to a more encyclopedic form. Durova 04:33, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Seems alright to me. Just needs to be cleaned up. --Aucaman 18:29, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • No one has looked to clean it up, and at present it is only anons editing to add to its present poor form. Harro5 23:05, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, yes, it's taking long to clean up, but it's not hopeless. All it needs is an edit for tone. Deleting would mean losing valid content not easily replaced. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Although I agree the article should be kept, it's not like the content is difficult to replace. Any systems analysis student (or, as I believe is the case here, lecturer) could reproduce the content. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It's been tagged since November 2005 and we are now in erm... December 2005. Choalbaton 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, as the one who tagged it for cleanup. The article is important and useful, even in its current form. Needs cleanup for encyclopaedic style, but that is not sufficient for deletion, and I don't think nominating solely as a spur for cleanup is warranted or even necessarily useful. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 04:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep out the hands of those dirty immediatist scum! ;-) Kim Bruning 04:25, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and cleanup for encyclopedic style. Stifle 23:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, it's on my eventually-get-ropund-to-doing list ;-) The Land 16:27, 12 December 2005 (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.