Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business planning (an integrated plan approach)
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 of the debate was delete. Kilo-Lima|(talk) 16:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is a student essay — original research. Delete. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:46, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. And watch out for more of the same kind - I think we may have a student class project here - see The Buyer Utility Map. We also have Product Software Pricing - especially the see also with assigned author names!
- Note also that it includes Image:Concepts.JPG. Creating what should be a Wikitable as a JPG file is a totally anti-colaborative action which should be stomped upon firmly. -- RHaworth 11:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. --Sleepyhead 11:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, WP:NOR. PJM 11:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Metamagician3000 12:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, original research. --Terence Ong 14:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.--Isotope23 19:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the problem? The table has been changed and there is no information published without the proper rights. 1:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: see debate at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. -- RHaworth 11:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd like to ask that this nomination be withdrawn or put on hold pending centralized discussion. It's not just one page in question; it's a fairly large number, all related. John Reid 13:48, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I sympathise with your general position, but if one or more of the articles (such as this one) shouldn't be here, then shouldn't we delete them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplication of effort, risk of inconsistency. John Reid 15:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The history of AfDs is one of inconsistency — that's unfortunately the name of the game. My worry here is that we shouldn't just decide not to delete this article despite the near-unanimous consensus, simply because there are other articles that might be in the same position but not yet deleted. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Duplication of effort, risk of inconsistency. John Reid 15:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I sympathise with your general position, but if one or more of the articles (such as this one) shouldn't be here, then shouldn't we delete them? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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.