Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business excellence


 * 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. Spartaz Humbug! 16:51, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Business excellence

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

This article has been unsourced for around six years and is written in a subjective, essayish style. If there is an article to be written on this topic, it is clear that this is not it. I do not believe that this is a fit subject for an encyclopedia, any more than "sporting exellence" or "adequacy at teaching" would be, and my searches for sourcing for this topic bears that out. Reyk YO!  06:20, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Agreed that "business excellence" is not a named thing, and therefore not suitable for WP. There is a full article on Malcolm_Baldrige_National_Quality_Award, so the removal of this article has no effect on that information. The other methodology mentioned here, EFQM has a poorly-sourced article that links to this one via "business excellence" and has problems of WP:SPA and WP:COI. That is unfortunate because the article is about a European non-profit that promotes business and seems to have a reasonably long history that may be worthy of an article. I would say to leave that article in place in with its "multiple issues" banner and hope that it is improved. LaMona (talk) 15:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep&mdash;Several sources from google scholar, searching for &lt;"business excellence" + Deming&gt;
 * (cited 212 times)
 * (cited 231 times)
 * (cited 103 times)
 * (cited 104 times)
 * (cited 89 times)
 * While the generic term is certainly in use, the article refers to a specific academic model which has been received in-depth coverage in both the peer-reviewed and popular literature. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 15:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 08:25, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

 
 * Keep The topic is notable, as detailed above. The complaint that the page "written in a subjective, essayish style" does not stand up as the style seems fairly bland and dispassionate.  In any case, such stylistic considerations and other flaws are best addressed by ordinary editing per our editing policy. Andrew (talk) 12:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, NorthAmerica1000 16:25, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete as mostly unsourced (WP:V, WP:OR). No indication of sources that make this particular model or idea notable. The term is so generic that there are guaranteed to be sources that use or define it in some way, but that doesn't mean we can write a coherent article about it. This one reads like meaningless buzzword salad to me.  Sandstein   18:05, 22 September 2014 (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.