Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upward feedback

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. Lack of WP:RS and WP:V after being tagged for a year means it's not ready for prime time. Lack of WP:RS and WP:V after AfD is an even surer sign. If someone wants to recreate it with sources, more power to them. Pigman☿ 05:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Upward feedback

Upward feedback (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Unsourced, tagged for a year. Almost orphaned. Seems like WP:OR. Article does not establish "Upward feedback" as a notable business concept. Torc2 (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Strong keep There's no point deleting something just because it's crap. This subject is worthy of an article, though the current one is crap. It might be improved--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I suggested AfD because it doesn't assert notability, has no sources, and has no reason to be here. The fact it's a crap article is just incidental. Torc2 (talk) 23:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Weak keep Google says this is associated with University of British Columbia; sounds like there is some credibility. Good starting point is here. Secondary sources may be a problem. Cheers, --NickPenguin(contribs) 22:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
  • There is a separate article for 360 degree feedback - should this maybe just be merged to that? Torc2 (talk) 04:05, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Keep, no valid deletion criteria presented. Need of cleanup and expansion are not valid reasons. Cburnett 21:45, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • comment WP:N is exceptionally clear about the requirement that an article provide citations that establish its subject's notability. WP:OR and WP:V are clear that a subject requires citations. The fact you have specifically tracked down my (and only my) AfDs and, within the span of one minute - (did you even read the articles?) - voted keep on all of them indicates you're treading WP:HAR: "Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, [...]". Torc2 22:36, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Speedy delete as not assertion of notability is even attempted. Will you rescue? Bearian (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Delete. Article clearly does not meet the requirements of WP:VERIFY. — Satori Son 17:40, 5 December 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.