Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Excellence

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 of the debate was no consensus to delete, so kept by default. Johnleemk | Talk 13:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Excellence

This afd nomination was incomplete. The nominator's reasoning may be seen in this edit summary. Listing now. —Crypticbot (operator) 15:38, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete spam —Wahoofive (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article scrapes WP:NOR and commandeers a common word for its title - which is not even the full name of what it's describing. PJM 20:45, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. I am not persuaded this is an ad, or spam. However, it is a poor article written in impenetrable management-speak, and does not explain what it's central concept, the EFQM Excellence Model is. If that proves to be a commercial product of some kind then this is an ad and should be deleted. Otherwise it should be deleted for lack of context and poor quality. It was created in one session by an anon IP with no other edits, so it's unlikely to be cleaned up if tagged. Maybe Wikipedia should have an article on "Excellence" in its corporate management sense, but this is not it. AndyJones 21:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia has EFQM Excellence Model. Uncle G 18:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Research reveals that multiple independent sources have written and published works of their own about excellence and about its pursuit. There is plenty of scope for an encyclopaedia article. Keep. Uncle G 11:47, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per PJM Stifle 12:26, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good work, guys. Changing my vote to keep. AndyJones 17:25, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
{{Move to Wiktionary}}. As this stands it is really nothing more then a definition. The Red Link to a commercial product should at least be removed. Xaosflux 17:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)---this article is being expanded, and if expansion continues my vote changes to KEEP.[reply]
Move to Wiktionary - little more than a definition at present Barneyboo 18:03, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as dicdef. Now I can't shake the sound of Mr. Burns saying "Excellence!" from my head... :) Turnstep 20:51, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wasn't it "Excellent!"? Stifle 00:25, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes it was, but the that's the odd part: he is now saying "Excellence!" ;) Turnstep 01:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete spam --YHoshua 00:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Please explain in what way the article that you read was spam. Uncle G 02:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Izehar 22:22, 28 November 2005 (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.