Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business research (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. MBisanz ^talk 02:36, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Business research

Seems like WP:OR to me. It's been tagged for a bit with no real improvement. DARTH PANDA ^duel 03:16, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. OR, unsourced, it's someones college essay, blah blah blah. Tan | 39 03:40, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable topic, although the article is not well written. Steve Dufour (talk) 03:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--I see nothing notable in the article. It's like the process-analysis paper assigned in freshman comp, and it sure reads like a freshman comp essay. And what is "Figure 6.1" and "Figure 6.2" in the final section? Isn't this just poorly-written summary of the book cited? Author never returned to the article--perhaps the very article was also a class assignment. Drmies (talk) 05:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 11:42, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as just someone's school paper. Mangoe (talk) 14:10, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, pure tautological bollocks from start to finish: Business communicators face daily challenges that require data collection, idea gene ration, and concept organization. These activities are part of the second phase of the writing process, which includes researching, organizing and composing . . . Then you organize the ideas into sub clusters shown in Figure 6.2. This set of sub clusters could form the basis for an outline. Or you could make another set of sub clusters, further outlining the categories. The reference to "Figure 6.2", not supplied, makes me suspect that this is a copyvio of some sort, likely copied from a book rather than from a website, in which case this should be speedily deleted. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete — tautological bullshit (sorry, I'm American), that's a good one! MuZemike (talk) 18:00, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per everyone. JuJube (talk) 07:12, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.