Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Small business idea


 * 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. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 17:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Small business idea

 * - (View AfD) (View log)

This article provides no clear information about anything and seems to be nothing more than the start of a tutorial. It has little or no encyclopaedic value and shows no notability Tx17777 01:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam essay for shady pyramid scheme. --Infrangible 03:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete. The article is not hopeless, but as it stands it lacks sources and context. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by YechielMan (talk • contribs) 04:14, 17 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete per WP:SPAM - The first link is to a webforum about the concept and I'm not seeing anything else to distinguish it from a spam article. -- Kesh 04:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam -- Selmo  (talk) 05:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Spam. Nothing wrong with an article on small businesses, but I'm having a though time comning up with an example of an entry on an "idea" that would be viable. JCO312 14:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, likely speedy delete. Spam, insufferably vague, and approaches being a how-to article.  - Smerdis of Tlön 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per above.--Rudjek 20:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:NOT and WP:NOT#HOWTO. Ohconfucius 03:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above and as WP:SPAM.  Insane  phantom   (my Editor Review)  22:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep I am the original author. I've been busting my hump trying to edit and contribute other business related articles.  This is not easy as much of the business info here is pretty bad.  That said, it takes time. What I'm working for here is the notion that a small business idea is not just spaghetti thrown against the wall, The idea itself is a process that requires thought and refinement (much like this article). Give me another week or two and I'll pull it all together. What I don't want to do is just cut and past from my original work, which is not the first link but the second one.  If you must dump it now because you don't think a "small business idea" needs any explanation I'll disagree, but it's not the end of the world.  Writing takes time and revision, I should say "decent writing".  Please let me know one way or the other. I've made most of the changes off line and didn't want to add them until I was finished (to avoid this). Without listing my entire bio, I'm 41 and I have founded 4 businesses, 1 fairly successful, 1 very successful, and 2 that failed. Fifty fifty ain't bad in the business building world!Egurr 00:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, so this is your work entirely? Sorry, but Wikipedia has strict rules against original research. Plus, we already have an article about Small businesses. While I appreciate your effort, I'm afraid this article doesn't sound like it fits on Wikipedia. -- Kesh 00:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll just go ahead and fold this up and move the content as apparently I'm not able to get the idea across. I wanted to create an encyclopedic entry that explained in an unbiased approach what people like Hewlett and packard, Jobs, Gates, and Ford did with a business idea. In the end for wikipedia to remain vibrant, editors must have the final say, I just hope the editors of a category are truly expert in that category.Egurr 04:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Which is why, if you look above, I said I didn't want to cut and past from the original. And again, this has nothing to do with small business per se, but the process of creating a business idea.


 * 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.