Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Procurement


 * 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. - Mailer Diablo 07:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Public Procurement
Wrong title, wrong content. This article is written as part of a campaign to Right Great Wrongs by. It is a mixture of original research, agit-prop, complete bollocks and the blindingly obvious. I'm sure we have scope for an article on government tenders or some such, but this is not it, and fixing it would require wholesale removal of the existing content. Rarely have I been so tempted to simply delete out of process an article written by an adult, and only the involvement of editors who might take the trouble to fix it during WikiWoo's 48-hour block for disruption persuades me to give it the five days of AfD. Just zis Guy you know? 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. The information in it appears to be correct. It might be worthwhile to discuss the role of MERX or other online tendering systems, but government procurement is a notable topic. Consider the trailers the Federal Emergency Management Agency purchased without a public tender process which turned out to be unusable. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 18:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * As was everything ever bought by the British Government from EDS, Crapita or indeed pretty much anyone. This is, however, the wrong kind of snowjob. Just zis Guy you know? 18:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete The topic definitely deserves an article, but this isn't it. I tried to look at the sources cited and there is just nothing there to start building an article.  Anyway the title should probably be the more specific Government procurement.  Deleting is easier than erasing all content and moving. JChap2007 18:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per JChap, without prejudice to the creation of a non-soapbox Government procurement article. See also Articles for deletion/Public Tendering. Sandstein 20:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * When I'm not busy with deadlines, travel, etc., I think I'll write the Government procurement article in an NPOV manner without the soapboxing. This one needs deleted, though, as it's got too narrow a scope, and is, really, a repeat of what WikiWoo posted onto the Tenders page some time ago that was modified by several editors. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:40, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Userfy and delete. This isn't ready for encyclopedia space yet.  Under a general, non-regional title, the article would seem to be about public procurement policies generally.  The Canada-specific information here may ultimately be useful to someone who wishes to write about Canadian public procurement procedures. - Smerdis of Tlön 21:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - this is like creating an article on 20th century pop music containing only a poorly-written, opinionated view of WHAM!. Doesn't even lay a foundation for a good article. --Gary Will 21:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gary Will. Gwernol 21:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per Gary Will. I waited before voting hoping this article would improve, but it didn't. C56C 02:47, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom, per Sandstein, per Gary Will, etc. wikipediatrix 03:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. └ OzLawyer / talk ┐ 18:31, 24 August 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.