Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Billion

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page, if it exists; or after the end of this archived section. The result of the debate was Delete --Allen3 ^talk July 4, 2005 22:34 (UTC)

[edit] Next Billion and Bottom of the Pyramid

An attempt to use Wikipedia as a marketing vehicle for neologistic phrases in connection with the launch of a discussion forum. See also additional publicity efforts; delete as advertising. --Michael Snow 20:10, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. So this is what PHBs & marketroids who don't understand Wikipedia submit. -- llywrch 23:31, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Delete neologisms. JamesBurns 06:57, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. I apologize for the misunderstanding with these defintions that I posted. These terms refer to important concepts currently in use by the development industry. I posted it on Wikipedia, because, as an opensource platform, others would have the opportunity to edit these defintions. Through Wikipedia, I had hoped to have an opportunity to see how others understand this concept to broaden my own understanding. Now that I have clarified that, I would not consider it fair to delete these terms only because they are newly coined. Wikipedia hosts many new phrases, such as PHB (the comment above introduced me to that acronym), which can be interpreted as Per-Hop Behaviour, Pointy Haired Boss, Polyhydroxybutyrate, Player's Handbook, and Pyscho Hose Beast. In fact, considering that Wikipedia's strength lies in its ability to be revised by anyone at any time and to remain abreast of the latest developments in ideas, should it not encourage that its members post neologisms? What else is the information revolution about than the creation of new concepts? JFMahon3 15:15, 22 June 2005 (UTC)

  Wikipedia articles are not intended to be used for the creation of new concepts. The purpose of an encyclopedia is to document existing concepts; see Wikipedia:No original research. --Michael Snow 16:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Keep It. I've heard of "Base of the Pyramid" (BOP) before from reading C.K. Prahalad's book. It's a fairly new development strategy that is gaining more widespread attention. Similiarly, "Nextbillion" may begin to come into use as the concept of BOP spreads, since the two terms are intertwined. Lpinto

  Vote actually made by User:63.64.193.10, who wrote much of the content on the BOP page. User:Lpinto has no contributions. --Michael Snow 16:17, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• KEEP IT. Michael Snow is a known problem user at wikipedia who feels obligated to police everyone but himself. The purpose of an endeavor such as wikipedia is open-source, free contribution from one and all. Were this to be removed, it would be yet another instance of the wiki gestapo attempting to force their own misguided and arbitrary set of "standards"--to which no one contributing here has had to agree--on others. My own hard work here has fallen victim to the same sort of criticism by the ignorant and self-absorbed here who believe that they run this place. The fact of the matter is that there's only one rule here: There are no rules at wikipedia. That being said, nobody has any right to delete others' work, as long as it is factually accurate. Editing and expanding upon of articles is, needless to say, welcome here and what is intended to occur here. Removal of information with which some may disagree should never be tolerated.172.174.76.106 16:46, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• Keep It. I did indeed contribute to the writing of the BOP article because, as I said, I have read about BOP before and wanted to contribute my knowledge. I see no problem with having a legitimate, factual posting on an online dictionary that is open to all. I highly agree with the above post in that things should remain on Wikipedia so long as they are factual and contribute to society. These are documented concepts where links to outside research can be found within the definitions.

  Double vote by User:63.64.193.10. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 05:38 (UTC)

• Keep It. I belief it's a valuable endeavour to define this important concept at Wikipedia, even though there is still some discussion on the definition. Therefore, I hope the discussion-section of the article will also be used more. An encyclopaedia wouldn't be complete without this concept, which is somewhat new but at the same time established and increasingly an important area for scientific research.

  Unsigned comment posted by User:80.100.211.25. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 05:38 (UTC)

• Keep It. I started this article at the same time I posted the Bottom of the Pyramid definition because I was using both of the terms a lot in economic development (I am an economist who does a lot of web work), and people kept asking me to explain what Next Billion means. Mr. Snow- can you please do a better job explaining to me how what I started is ‘neologistic?’ It is documenting existing ideology and an documenting existing online community to help poor countries develop.

I can understand if you were an editor for Britannica how this might not make the cut, but isn’t one of Wikipedias advantages to be current on new developments? Did the community try to delete the definition for podcasting when it came out? User:egundersen

• User has 8 edits (account is actually User:Ericgundersen, not User:egundersen). --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 05:47 (UTC)... Ha- thank you for the correction… that was my gmail account. User:Ericgundersen, 29 June 2005 08:59 (est)

This vote was "closed" as a "keep" and the VfD notice removed from the articles by User:63.64.193.10, the same IP that double-voted above. Given that this action was taken by a participant in the debate, I reverted this as improper and premature. I also do not think that result is warranted based on Wikipedia practice in crediting votes on VfD. I ask the admin who actually closes this debate to look carefully at what has transpired here, and draw their own conclusions on how to treat the comments above. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 05:47 (UTC)

Hey Michael, I finally had time today to clean up some of the corporate flattery of linking to a press release and other lame content that made it into this entry that I stated and feel that this it is straight to the point now and stays focused on severing the general public who is interested in an economic development philosophy.

I am committed to keeping track of this post and would like this voting to end 1) What do you think? Do you see merit in the post now? 2) Can we stop this silly voting just because some intern did not understand the greater good of Wikipedia and stuck some press release link in? -- User:Ericgundersen, 29 June 2005 08:45 (est)

I don't see much difference, it still looks like an attempt to promote an insignificant discussion forum. Why don't you redirect your efforts to providing some actual content in the stubby article about World Resources Institute, an organization that it's actually possible to say something about without having to inflate its importance? I've added a link to NextBillion.net in that article; it might be appropriate to mention there, but doesn't warrant having its own article. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 16:47 (UTC)

Michael, Why is Bottom of the Pyramid on the deletion vote with Next Billion? They are not related. I guess I didn’t see that before. Now I am starting to think that you didn’t even bother to read these posts. What are you trying to do grouping them in together? They are different. "Is there an admin or wikipedia god out there to call this vote to order?" -- User:Ericgundersen, 29 June 2005 08:56 (est)

They're related for the purposes of this discussion because they're both newly coined phrases being used to market a discussion forum. (The fact that you started both articles at the same time is a pretty good indication of the relationship.) If one gets deleted, all the same arguments apply for deleting the other one, and if one stays, they might as well both stay. --Michael Snow 29 June 2005 16:47 (UTC)

But the whole point is that they're NOT "newly coined"! The phrase "bottom of the pyramid" is very well established and used quite frequently. Try a google search on it or just check out the links in its definition! "Next billion" is growing as a popularly-used phrase and can also be found used in several different areas with a simple Internet search. Michael, you are the only person who insists on the deletion of these terms and there are several others who have spoken out to keep them. Under the guidelines of Wikipedia, this debate should be over and the entries remain.

Based on Michaels recent move to include Bottom of the Pyramid in with this vote for deletion it is now clear that this just a personal attack on my postings because of some twisted personal vendetta- Michael wrote 'The fact that you started both articles at the same time is a pretty good indication of the relationship.' How can we call this vote to order? Does Michale do this to other people in this community? What can we do here? This is just silly... I want to end this. Michael is so stupid that he thinks these two phrases are used to market a discussion forum rather than shed light on economic development. How does an open community deal with people that try to be disruptive? Anyone?-- User:Ericgundersen, 4 July 2005 09:17 (est)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be placed on a related article talk page, if one exists; in an undeletion request, if it does not; or below this section.