Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business systems development

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 Speedily deleted NOT:HOWTO is not a speedy criteria but spam certainly is and this falls well within that realm. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:18, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business systems development

OK. This user has repeatedly removed the speedy tag placed on this article. However, he also removed any (direct) advertising material, so I'm bringing this article to AfD instead. This article is pure original research and advertising. TN‑X-Man 00:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - Article started as spam, and the wording still is like-advertisement or written as a guide (WP:NOTGUIDE). I've also got a hunch that it's some sort of copyvio, but apparently not of anything Google indexes. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Delete - Article quite clearly violates WP:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE Halifax Nomad (talk) 00:57, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Actually, the article isn't eligible for Speedy Deletion by WP:NOTGUIDE alone (see WP:CSD#Non-criteria). --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~Thanks. Maybe I'm misintrepreting this, but the first listed criteria of WP:CSD#Non-criteria is WP:NOT, which contains WP:NOTGUIDE if you scroll down.~~ Halifax Nomad (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just re-read WP:CSD#Non-criteria. Somehow I misintrepreted those as reasons to speedy-delete rather than reasons not to speedy-delete. Fixed my mistake. Halifax Nomad (talk) 03:14, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to that section (WP:CSD#Non-criteria), WP:NOT is considered a non-criteria for speedy deletion-- that is to say, on its own, it is not sufficient to merit speedy deletion. --/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 03:08, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic article. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 02:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, original research, personal essay. JIP | Talk 04:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE is enough reason. NoDepositNoReturn (talk) 07:15, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:CSD G1 as patent nonsense. Are you a business owner who has spent years trying to work out the secret of business? As far as I am concerned, any article so full of vague generalities is "(c)ontent that, while apparently meaningful after a fashion, is so completely and irredeemably confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it whatsoever." To the extent that any meaning can be extracted from this bit of logorrhea, it's yet another suggestion that you can Make Money Fast in any business by adding to your administrative overhead. There seem to be a lot of people selling plans that amount to this, and as such there is a likely commercial agenda at work here too. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 15:25, 16 June 2008 (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.