Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ProcessWiki


 * 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. One (talk) 00:27, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

ProcessWiki

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This site is not notable yet. Note: the article has also been deleted from the Dutch Wikipedia. --Erwin (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions.  -- — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't trust the Dutch Wikipedia as far as I can throw it. I've seen repeated deletions over there of material that is considered notable over here, so our policies clearly don't match enough for its deletion over there to mean anything. - Mgm|(talk) 09:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - I can find no coverage about this Wiki. There is this Forbes article talking generically about the concept of a process wiki.  But aside from directory entries and their website, I can find no information about this Wiki.  Note that the author of the article appears to have a conflict of interest as the edit history of the main page of ProcessWiki shows the same username as used for this article.  Verifiability is also a concern as the article claims an establishment date of March 2000 which doesn't seem to match with the few random pages I selected showing histories no earlier than 2009, and a Global launch for May 2009.  -- Whpq (talk) 12:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I think an article about the ProcessWiki should be on Wikipedia. When is a 'thing' notable and worth mentioning in an encyclopedia? In my opinion this is the case when it is something unique, interesting and meaningful. If you take a good look on the internet you cannot find something like the ProcessWiki. So that should make it unique. What makes it interesting and meaningful? At this moment business processes and especially knowledge about best practices is only available within consulting firms. The Process Wiki is a platform for business people from all over the world to share their processes with each other and learning from each other. Quite interesting and meaningful I would say. Especially because this website is the only place on the whole internet where this is possible. Sometimes I really got the feeling the dutch are so conservative. When you really dive into the subject, you can see the Process Wiki adds a new dimension to thw world of business processes. Okay, the article could be re-written on some points, but deletion goes quite far. Also take a look at Deletion_policy. The points mentioned there do not apply for the article about the ProcessWiki. --Pvanerk (talk) 08:46, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - the article has been nominated for deletion as failing to meet notability, the wikipedia definition of it. Do you have any reliable sources to establish notability?  -- Whpq (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep - From my point of view I believe this page can be very helpful for people who learn by example (Business Process Modelling). The site is full of examples of BPM related material and is freely available to the public, quite rare in my opinion. That would be my reason to keep it, but maybe not as a full page? (related links, subpage, something like that). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblommers (talk • contribs) 10:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Not notable enough. GT5162 (我的对话页) 16:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Reluctant Delete. I don't like basing these judgemnts solely on WP:N (mainly since i disagree with it), however it fails more than just that. If it were deleted, then re-written with sufficient WP:RS- the real test of notability in my book, inot something resembling an encyclopeadic article, I'd fight tooth and nail to keep it. As it is, I'm afraid I agree with the deletion. HJ Mitchell (talk) 09:45, 21 April 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.