Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wave strategy


 * 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. Those advocating keeping the article didn't make it clear why it should be kept. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Wave strategy

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This article is about a neologism coined in a book that was published last year. There is no evidence that this term exists outside of this book or the Munich Business School. The book itself has been spammed recently on Wikipedia, which drew attention to this article. The article was deleted recently via proposed deletion, but was restored after a request from an anonymous IP at deletion review who claimed, "Futher studies at the Munich Business School have showed that this strategy gets actually used by 15 per cent of Small and Medium sized businesses as a market entry strategy." Delete this article, and the related article Sprinkler strategy as attempts to market a non-notable book.

I am also nominating the following related article as stated above:
 * --  At am a  頭 15:58, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.  --  At am a  頭  15:59, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Atama, yes I have heard of that study as well. However the Wave Strategy is quite important. Since I would guess that it is even more than 15% that actually use this strategy when they go abroad. They often simply don't know the name. I am teaching international business at the FOM University in Hamburg, Germany and I was mainly working on this article to improve some internationalisation strategies on Wikipedia. I have students working on different papers and most of them should include the wave strategy at some point. Well, this is my oppinion. I am not very well in programming on Wikipedia, thus my articles might need some cleanup and I am sorry for that. But I am only making contributions where I really think that they should be included on Wikipedia. I would hate to see this article beeing deleted. — comment added by Raid008 (talk • contribs) 17:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Ohh and I jsut saw that the book "Market Entry Strategies" by C. Lymbersky is on the spam list. I am afraid that is my fault as well. I am was probably a bit to entusiastig about putting references on some articles. Due to my work i am used to referencing every statement that i make. I will deliete a couple of these references and put others in stead. It is not my intention to promote any certain book, even though i think this particular one is very good, but I will put others instead thus it should not be misunderstood in the future. Could you remove that book from the spam list. the same with the article "sprincler strategy" this is really very whidly used timeing strategy in international business together with the waterfall strategy Thanks Atama. Cheers, Raid008 — comment added by Raid008 (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - "...important..." - WP can't assess importance. It can only assess what is or is not covered in generally wp:reliable sources.  Here, we have a subject that appear interesting but not wp:notable.  The press and broader academic community appears disinterested.  When either becomes interested in the subject, perhaps it will be appropriate for WP.  But not yet.  If there is broader coverage of this concept, now would be a good time to present it. :) -  Sinneed  05:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete both articles Bookshops have literally hundreds of books where someone has developed a new buzzword with suitable language to convince the gullible that this latest fashion is really important. The only way we have to distinguish between such buzzwords and notable topics is to rely on reliable sources. The topics in these two articles do not have such secondary sources. Johnuniq (talk) 07:32, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 *  Keep as for reasons meantioned above. @Johnuniq: I am sure that everybody has some knowledge of some areas. But yours is clearly not "International Business". If you would know anything about international business, you would know that the Sprinkler Strategy apears in pretty much every international business textbook. Don't think we should allow people to get a vote that don't understand the topic at all. In literature there are two main timing strategies the Waterfall & the Sprinkler Strategy. If one does not know eather one of them, he/she should not write comments about topics that they don't understand. I don't mean this personal, but from my oppion, people that comment about something they demonstrated to have very little knowledge of, are a bigger threat to wikipedia than people that are speciallist in an area and contribute articles that are relevant, but not as known. Raid008 (talk) 11:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Just to note, this isn't a vote, it's a discussion and what counts is a reasoned justification to keep or delete these articles. What would help you is to give a reason why this subject meets inclusion criteria at WP:N. Saying "don't think we should allow people to get a vote that don't understand the topic at all" goes against our deletion discussion criteria, and I assure you that attacking the competence of other editors in this discussion is going to be counter-productive. --  At am a  頭 15:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Yes, I am sorry it came out a bit disrespectful @Johnuniq: I crossed a line, it was really not personal or an attack. I am sure that in general you agree with me. Raid008 (talk) 22:18, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

-> added: 13:28 22 October 2009: I have added two more references to the wave strategy, one from the Government of Dubai proposing the wave strategy in their "Guide to Export" and an other one from the York University. I am sure there can be more, but hey, this should be enough now. @Raid008: If you could add some more references to the Sprinkler Strategy this deletion thing should be off the table. Especially since we have now established that this article is not about advertising a book or something. I also took the name C. Lymbersky out of the article, that there wont be any confusion in the future. BredMiller The University of Adelaide, Australia teaches the Market Entry Strategy as well. I am 100 per cent sure that this gets tought in pretty much every class that teaches market entry strategies. Somebody who knows Market Entry strategies form uni, also know the Wave Strategy and the Sprinkler Strategy. I also added an other link to where the Wave Strategy is suggested by Global Equations in their Annual Magazin. Ending up with about 7 references, that should do it. ;) Chris008 (talk) 12:08, 22 October 2009 (UTC) An other link for the Sprinkler Strategy: http://www.rainerbusch.de/mo_13_imstrategies.htm#Timing Strategies
 * Keep I consider both articles quite important. In fact I am actually disapointed to find only these three here. There are a few more that should be on Wikipedia such as the North-South Strategy or the Bridgehead strategy. I find especially the Wave Strategy Article very well written. in my eyes there is nothing wrong with it. A lot of poeple have contributed to this article, including me. I am sure there will be more references, but I see already three or four. I whish every article would have that many! BredMiller —Preceding undated comment added 10:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC).
 * strong Keep I agree, both strategies are important. I found a couple more references. The University of Wildau, Germany has both strategies in their curiculum. http://www.tfh-wildau.de/wvr/media/EM_MA_Modul_International_Business_Strategies.pdf


 * commentWell, I think it is clear now that we should keep the article. There are reliable resources and I think the disscussion showes that it is a notable article. There are far less notable articles here with only one or two references. This one has some pretty good references now and considering that this is one of the most important timing strategies in Market Entries, it is clearly notable. The 'promoting a book' thing is off the table as well. Sure maybe we can add more references in the future and there are clearly a couple people working on this article here, thus there will be more comming up, but what we have already is pretty good and better than average here on Wikipedia. After all, why should we discourage users to spend time on contiuesly creating and edtiting articles if they get deleted, because seven reliable reference and this beeing part of the curiculum of many universities, is not enough for inclusion on Wikipedia?! I think it is, and I am sure the others will keep working on this article as well. BredMiller (talk) 11:17, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply - No, it's not clear at all. The only people arguing to keep the article have done so without giving any actual evidence for their claims. The sources added don't meet the criteria at WP:RS, and without meaning offense to any of you, your participation in Wikipedia has only been to promote these concepts, and I was originally made aware of these articles due to conflict of interest complaints from those who have created them. As I said before, Wikipedia is not the place to promote book sales, or to try to spread the word about neologisms. --  At am a  頭 18:11, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment There appear to be three closely-related topics: Market entry strategy, Sprinkler strategy, Wave strategy, and there are three users recommending "keep" (BredMiller, Chris008, Raid008) who edit mainly in these topics. There are many online financial publications, and since none have been cited to support the notability of these terms I think the very incidental comments in the linked pdf and munich-business-school.de link are not sufficient to keep these articles. Johnuniq (talk) 00:52, 25 October 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.