Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Futureperfect organization

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. east.718 at 09:32, November 25, 2007

[edit] Futureperfect organization

Futureperfect organization (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

no assertion of notability, non notable book and author. Contested speedy delete. No sources outside in-universe bio of author. Created by SPA account. Need I go on? Keeper | 76 22:08, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per above. Doesn't meet WP:ORG. I actually tagged the page for lack of notability, but this is actually cleaner - and warranted. Xymmax (talk) 22:25, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per WP:NOT#INFO. Non-notable business model that is probably covered already under another name in another existing Wikipedia article. Probably a copyvio as well: two articles with that exact same name were deleted as copyvios earlier today. --Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 22:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
• I have added more sources to this article. It was recreated more than once as I am new and was unfamiliar with the debate process. User:Elyriakat
• This page was created to give a definition for a business paradigm term that was otherwise not listed under another wikipedia article. The uses of the term have been cited, which is why I created the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elyriakat (talk • contribs) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • • thank you for adding more sources and for contributing to Wikipedia. However, the sources you added do not help assert the notability of the organization that you've written about. The Manila Times article has nothing to do with Futureperfect organization, never even mentions it, unless I missed something. The second is "subscriber only", which, in general, is not acceptable for Wikipedia's purposes. This process (discussion) is called AfD, or Articles for Deletion. What that means is that other editors like you and I will come to this page to decide whether the article is worthy of staying here in the English Wikipedia. Generally, the discussion is kept open for 5 days, so keep working on the article! If it grows to Wikipedia standards through independent, verifiable sources that assert the notability of the subject, then I would be happy to withdraw the nomination or support a keep decision. Thanks for your contributions, I hope you like it here and decide to stay. Keeper | 76 22:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Every reference is written by William A. Guillory except this one which actually has nothing at all to do with the subject of this article. IrishGuy ^talk 22:51, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
    
    • He is the author of the book, and creator of the term, which is why he is referenced. this one talks about this paradigm in the article if you read it all the way through, it is also used by ASTD and the Business journal listed. The Manila Times article does reference it. you can do a pagesearch for "FuturePerfect" and find it. Thank you for your help Keeper, it's appreciated.
      
      • William Guillory articles aren't valid independent references about William Guillory. IrishGuy ^talk 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
      • I have to agree with Irishguy here. I'm sorry to say, I read the Manila Times article. It has nothing to do with Futureperfect as the subject of an article. For an organization to be notable, it has to be the subject of an article/story/whatever from an outside reliable source. Right now, I still believe the (Wikipedia) article has too many problems to keep it. Please don't construe this as personal. There are lots of things that I personally think are important that will not get Wikipedia articles. My mother, for example. My son too. Very important, and unless one of them does something incredible to get themselves written about extensively in outside, reliable sources, they won't be here either. But that does not mean they're not important. Keep up the good editing, hope you stay! Cheers, Keeper | 76 16:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Unsourced notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
• Delete per notability issues as expressed above. Rocket000 (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2007 (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.