Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requisition (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Requisition
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Though it uses many words (mostly unnecessary words in my opinion), the article is nothing more than a dictionary entry and should be deleted per Wikipedia is not a dictionary. A Wiktionary entry exists here, and I think that all the verbose explanations contribute little to the the understanding of the term. In the last nomination (more than 8 years ago) a consensus wasn't reached, hopefully this time the result will be different. WannaBeEditor (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:04, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep article as it stands only deals with business requisitions - this should be expanded to discuss the legal usage, which is much more notable. —Мандичка YO 😜 06:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Your comment pretty much contributes nothing to the discussion. No one is arguing whether the page is notable, the page simply has no standing, it is a simple dictionary entry. WannaBeEditor (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * That is not how AfD works. We are here to determine whether or not the TOPIC is notable; the present state of the page is totally irrelevant. Please take time to review the WP:Deletion Policy and criteria for deletion. —Мандичка YO 😜 07:51, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep, though it might better be renamed to Purchase requisition which currently redirects to the article. Legal requisition is a different thing altogether, and should have a separate article, as should Military requisition: all three topics are notable with many reliable sources available. I have added 3 sources to the article: as Wikimandia says, notability does not depend on what is currently in an article, but on what is reliably stated about the topic in the world outside. The concept and practice of requisition is extremely well established in business, and documented in plentiful (not to say boring) detail. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My concern is that "purchase requisition" as it stands is very similar to purchase order. I don't mind three articles as long as the sources are there on unique notability. If so, this will need some adjusting in Wikidata as the articles on requisition in other languages mainly refer to the legal term or a combination of legal/military. Thanks for adding sources Chiswick. —Мандичка YO 😜 12:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My pleasure. However, the PR and the PO are very different. Somebody in, say, the carpentry department issues a PR for more nails. The purchase department approves the PR and issues a PO to the hardware supplier. The carpentry dept is not able to issue a PO, and the purchase dept is not allowed to issue a PO until it receives a valid PR. We could handle both with an article Purchase process but that would be a different kind of article. It would cover the supplier's invoice, delivery, and payment also. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Great, it seems you understand that part better than me. If you want to divide into separate articles and can find the sources, that would be super helpful. Thanks! —Мандичка YO 😜 13:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, mostly unsourced dicdef. If notable, individual article about specific types of requisition can be started.  Sandstein   14:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete The article, even as improved, and even the topic itself seems to live somewhere between WP:NOTDICT and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Either way, while it may certainly belong somewhere, it doesn't belong here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete --- Well, I guess you guys are right (is one allowed to admit such a thing at AfD?). I am sure there is a notable topic here for Purchase process, which includes animals like purchase requisition from the carpentry department and purchase order from central purchasing. I don't think that military requisition is part of the same article, the only common ground being dicdef, indeed. Purging all that and changing the article's name constitutes writing a new article, which I might do if I was extremely bored one afternoon. Chiswick Chap (talk) 21:34, 5 December 2016 (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.