Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Community Equity


 * 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. Cirt (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Community Equity

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Contested prod. Open-source project. "New model on how to calculate social values," unfortunately it is not referenced by reliable sources. The graphics are of a kind that one would expect to see on a promotional pamphlet. The current notability of the project itself is not asserted. Delete.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 12:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Following updates has been made on 20 September 2009
 * Re:Reliable Source> added references from iKNOW 07 and KnowTech 06 proceedings
 * Re: notability of project: added reference to Open Source project sources
 * graphics: changed equity graphics

Is there a way to mark the article as draft as we will make a updates and improvement over the next few days ?  peterreiser - User:peterreiser

Following updates has been made on 21. September 2009
 * Re: Reliable Source> added patent link, history, related open source projects

We kindly request to remove this page deletion request from this article  peterreiser - User:peterreiser


 * If anything, it's actually worse now. A patent link is not a reliable source to establish notability: it only establishes existence. The "reliable sources" are from Peter Reiser, who obviously is involved in the development of this project. What we call reliable sources are usually the kind the subject is unable to get modified without involving an attorney in the process. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:59, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What about the referenced  sources like Shel Israel, Robert Scoble, Norman Nielsen, Daniel Barbosa and others ? Are they not viewed as reliable ? Peterreiser (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No. The Barbosa-Scoble source is highly promotional in nature (it begins, At Dow Jones, we..., and the URL contains the word "solutions," which would indicate involvement as a reseller or something like that), therefore unreliable. The Nielsen source only qualifies as "trivial," that is, it only mentions Community Equity in passing. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Re: Barbosa-Scoble source: Community Equity is not a product - it is a concept AND and the proof of the concept is the Open Source implementation.
 * Re: Nielsen source: NN group is one of the recognized experts in corporate culture and the human-centered product development. The mentioned report covers 5 pages on Community Equity (the web reference only outlines the report structure) Peterreiser (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, by "we" you mean yourself and who else? --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 16:02, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There is a [team] of different companies and research organizations  which are actively working  on the open source version of Community equity. Peterreiser (talk) 17:14, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Then you would be well-advised to read our guidelines on conflict of interest. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 17:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The aim is to describe the Community Equity concept in a neutral way. I just added a statement on the talk page as recommended in the conflict of interest guidelines. .  I highly respect the Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If you still think this article does not adhere to these policies or  there is still a CoI  then the article should be deleted. Peterreiser (talk) 14:27, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  23:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Delete I hope you become notable, but there is no indication  that you actually already are .  I suggest waiting until there are some third-party articles about you, and then trying an article.   DGG ( talk ) 02:33, 29 September 2009 (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.