Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BW Expert
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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 12:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] BW Expert
This page is is not a notable publication. It describes an online company newsletter. According to WP:WEB, the article MUST meet any ONE of the following criteria:
- The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.
- The website or content has won a well known and independent award, either from a publication or organisation.
- The content is distributed via a site which is both well known and independent of the creators, either through an online newspaper or magazine, an online publisher, or an online broadcaster
The subject of this article meets NONE of these criteria.
In addition, a PROD was put on this article earlier. The original author of the article removed the PROD in bad faith by NEITHER:
a) making any improvements or changes to the article to show that the subject was notable OR
b) by even acknowledging the concerns expressed by the PROD and making any defense of the article on grounds that it MIGHT be notable. As such, I propose that the article is deleted as per WP:NN, and WP:WEB guidlines -- Jayron32 02:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per Jayron32. This is one of a series of articles written by the same editor; the remainder have been tagged for PROD. In fact, the entire Category:SAP category is full of redlinks, but I have insufficient expertise to determine which are relevant. Risker 04:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- To piggyback on what Risker has noted, I have made a cursory check of the SAP category, and the ENTIRE category consists of articles that are circularly linked to each other and EACH seems to be an article that exists solely as an advertisement for whatever services this SAP company provides. An administrator should SERIOUSLY look at this category. There are dozens of pages there, and they ALL seem like vanity/advertising pages. If all that can be done is to AfD-tag each page individually, then we should get on it, but SOMETHING should be done. It reads like someone who is associated with the company is familiar with the Wikisystem is gaming the system for advertising for his company. That MAY not be the case, but if it IS not, then the original authors OR others should be pushed to improve these articles. If notable ALL of these articles should be improved (at best, they should ALL be merged into a single article. 2 dozen seperate articles describing each product or service that this SAP company makes or offers seems a bit, well, you know...). If not notable, they should ALL be deleted. --Jayron32 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing to stop non-administrators reviewing the articles in the category, and pushing for improvement; or even trying to improve the articles directly by looking for sources, citing sources, and adding content. If you wish articles to be improved, then pull out the toolbox yourself and use the tools in it. Uncle G 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Good point Uncle G, and I agree with you to a point. However, there has been no assertion of notability made on any of the articles, so I am currently leaning on the side of the fence that says that this entire category is not worthy of inclusion. I lack the expertise in the area to improve these articles. I am also under the belief that if they were worthy of being kept then their creator or someone else should improve them. SAP may not, a priori be worthy of deletion as a subject, BUT there has been no effort made to defend them as such. This AfD should either push for changes or delete entirly. Either way, in my opinion, wikipedia improves. I am not myself 100% for deleting ALL of the articles. This information is not giberish, but there is nothing internal to ANY of the articles that merits their inclusion. So barring some rewrites, as they are written now, they ALL need to go. --Jayron32 18:48, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- There's nothing to stop non-administrators reviewing the articles in the category, and pushing for improvement; or even trying to improve the articles directly by looking for sources, citing sources, and adding content. If you wish articles to be improved, then pull out the toolbox yourself and use the tools in it. Uncle G 08:52, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- To piggyback on what Risker has noted, I have made a cursory check of the SAP category, and the ENTIRE category consists of articles that are circularly linked to each other and EACH seems to be an article that exists solely as an advertisement for whatever services this SAP company provides. An administrator should SERIOUSLY look at this category. There are dozens of pages there, and they ALL seem like vanity/advertising pages. If all that can be done is to AfD-tag each page individually, then we should get on it, but SOMETHING should be done. It reads like someone who is associated with the company is familiar with the Wikisystem is gaming the system for advertising for his company. That MAY not be the case, but if it IS not, then the original authors OR others should be pushed to improve these articles. If notable ALL of these articles should be improved (at best, they should ALL be merged into a single article. 2 dozen seperate articles describing each product or service that this SAP company makes or offers seems a bit, well, you know...). If not notable, they should ALL be deleted. --Jayron32 05:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete advertising as per Jayron32. Vizjim 07:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Strong delete per nom; a walled garden. Another management consultant spam. - Smerdis of Tlön 14:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Advertising, and fails to meet any qualifications. Delete. · XP · 05:48, 1 October 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.
