This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bristol, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Bristol-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Is this article neccessary. Jezhotwells (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
No articles are necessary. This one is on a notable subject, with sources in the article showing notability, so is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The statement that there is "no likelihood of this becoming a useful article" is simply guesswork, which is not a good basis for making editorial decisions. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:55, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
While a "definition" may be enough to qualify an article as a stub, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. If little other information is ever likely to be added, the entry should go to our sister project, Wiktionary. The distinction between dictionary and encyclopedia articles is best expressed by the use–mention distinction: A dictionary article is about a word or phrase; an encyclopedia article is about the subject denoted by that word or phrase.
I base my reasoning on the fact that since created in 2007 the only additions have been category templates and one citation. Both references in fact point at the same source, the report / book by Konstadakopoulos and others. There doesn't seem to be much else out there and no evidence that anyone wants to expand the article. Jezhotwells (talk) 14:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)