Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business planning


 * 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. – Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 04:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Business planning
Was orginally nominated for deletion, but nobody declared anything; relisting. User:SP-KP stated: ''I'm not entirely sure what this article [meaning Corporate_strategy_development_method, Sandstein] is about (I'm not even entirely sure I think it's an AFD candidate). However, it's at least in need of some contextualisation. Any views? SP-KP 22:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)'' No vote.  K ilo-Lima|(talk) 14:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * This article is part of a problem being discussed at Centralized discussion/Method Engineering Encyclopedia. The article qualifies for deletion as unencyclopedic and instructive original research, but because a transwiki is apparently in the works, perhaps it should be moved out of the main namespace so it can be transwikied later. –Sommers (Talk) 14:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Contains good content - the problem is how to fit it into the proper title. Clearly, proper business planning is the topic of numerous books and of interest to thousands, if not millions of business persons. We should let the Wiki community digest this page a little longer. george 15:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * As with Organization design (above), the content may be good, but this is an essay, not an encyclopedia article. –Sommers (Talk) 17:14, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete: seems like OR. If the Method Engineering team wants to publish their work online, perhaps they should look into Wikibooks or Wikiversity. --Hetar 07:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, Wikipedia is not a free webhost. Stifle (talk) 00:01, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I thinks it's valid and the approach - if a bit deriavative - is certainly worth a read. Don't see that cause for this anguish, actually. Brian —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.141.248.218 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 24 April 2006 (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.