Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Technical fellow


 * 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. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:36, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Technical fellow

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

The article's notability is in question since September 2007, and there's some dispute in that respect on the talk page. In my opinion, the topic does not meet WP:N. Namely, no independent sources have been provided to back up that "Technical fellow" is a term or concept in general use (apart from naming coincidences). If, on the other hand, this concept relates to one company only, I don't think it's worth an article - there's no point in hosting there staff list or organization chart on Wikipedia. B. Wolterding (talk) 00:51, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, phrase is too narrow in usage, apparently limited just to Microsoft. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 01:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, other companies may have technical fellows, but this article is about Microsoft technical fellows and sourced only to a Microsoft internal page. It's way too narrow, no evidence of notability (that is, no significant coverage in independent sources), and generally not appropriate for wikipedia. Dicklyon (talk) 01:31, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. I see an IBM Fellow that seems somewhat analogous. Would this be worth keeping if renamed to something similar like Microsoft Technical Fellow? Or perhaps both ought to be deleted? --Delirium (talk) 03:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The IBM Fellow page has an awful lot of red links, particularly for the recent fellows. This indicates to me that the specific list is not particularly notable, whereas the general idea of an industrial fellow is (and is covered under Fellow.)  LouScheffer (talk) 03:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete, . The general page Fellow covers the more generic form of this (too specific) idea covered here.  Since re-directs can now point to sections, I'd suggest replacing this page with a redirect to Fellow.  LouScheffer (talk) 03:11, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The boldface word prefixed to it is "delete". But your rationale actually involves no use of the deletion tool whatsoever. Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Very true. I mean replace the page with a link to the more general concept of Fellow.  This will delete the content, though not the page itself, and requires no use of the delete tool.  LouScheffer (talk) 18:03, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:DICTDEF, does not establish notability outside of WP:OR and/or WP:MADEUP, WP:NEOLOGISM (although I recognize it is a generic concept of fellow, the page states that it is a "award" marked on a person, and I doubt that falls under generic, so it might fail WP:NEOLOGISM/WP:MADEUP. &eta;oian   &Dagger;orever &eta;ew &Dagger;rontiers  09:24, 3 January 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.