Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Model Canvas

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. Sandstein 20:57, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Business Model Canvas

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The principal problem here isn't notability-- it's WP:NOTMANUAL--this is a textbook description of how to use a program. Possibly suitable for a different wiki, but not for WP DGG ( talk ) 05:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete until a better article can be made as the current version seems acceptable at first but could be better (so we'll wait until that happens). Cheers, SwisterTwister talk 06:49, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom and also as a WP:NEO. Appears to be an attempt to spread usage of newly invented term. My searches turned up nothing to add. FuriouslySerene (talk) 14:31, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the problem is not notability, then on what grounds is there to delete this article? Tear out the parts of the article you feel violate guidelines; DGG and SwisterTwister's arguments are basically WP:DELETIONISNOTCLEANUP. riffic (talk) 02:21, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How is this not a WP:NEO? FuriouslySerene (talk) 01:21, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So what if it is? What are the standards for deletion through the AFD process here at Wikipedia? Neologisms are quite common, for instance, this reminds me a bit of Value stream mapping or SWOT analysis, other notable business process topics. As it stands none of the !DELETE voters have given rationale why this article should be deleted nor have been able to point to valid deletion criteria. riffic (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"So what if it is?" Wikipedia is not a dictionary, and that is policy. What you've just said is akin to saying "so what if it's not notable?". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy page WP:NAD does say that "neologisms are commonly deleted" but it does not say they shall or must be deleted. So far wp:neo and wp:notmanual has been the only reason anyone has given to delete this article. No one as yet posited any argument why this article does not (or will not potentially) meet criteria for inclusion, even the original nominator said "problem here isn't notability"! Remember these are policies too: WP:V and WP:OR; so far no convincing argument which bases itself on established rational for deletion has yet been given. riffic (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article is not well evolved yet and definitely needs improvement, but the term is widely used. A quick web search pulls up ~500,000 results. HansTheBanger (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:GHITS. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 09:15, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This comment was found on the subject's talk page: "According to Google Scholar the concept of the "Business Model Canvas" has been mentioned in about 2600 scientific publications, see here, which makes it quite clear that this topic meets the Wikipedia notability guidelines, see WP:N. -- Mdd (talk) 12:19, 14 April 2015 (UTC)" I'm not going to argue against that. riffic (talk) 07:14, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —UY Scuti ^Talk 15:37, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:59, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now, with no prejudice against a better article being created in its place. Kharkiv07 (T) 15:32, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your thoughts but the Closer of this AFD should realize there was no rational included in this !VOTE to say why the article should be deleted. riffic (talk) 22:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; Wikipedia is not a manual. Also, for a term that has recently come into usage, ie is a neologism, we need substantive coverage about the term, not just using the term, per WP:NEO. Therefore, the !votes discussing usage are off the mark. Vanamonde93 (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll concede that under WP:DEL-REASON, "Articles that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms" would qualify for deletion. I guess the question would be, can Business Model Canvas ever be attributed to a reliable source or not. I feel that it can be and already has been by a growing number of folks in the Lean community (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherskroupa/2015/01/28/the-key-to-imprinting-innovation-into-company-culture-is-agility-and-flexibility/, http://leanstack.com/why-lean-canvas/, http://www.zdnet.com/article/survival-skills-business-models-for-startups-and-large-companies/, https://hbr.org/2013/05/why-the-lean-start-up-changes-everything, et cetera). It feels a lot of times people who vote in AfD discussions have merely never heard of something, and consider that to be a sign of non-notability. riffic (talk) 07:03, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
and a note for the closer. If you simply count the !votes on this I swear I'll drag this through a DRV. Try to build something better please? At the very least redirect to Alexander Osterwalder. riffic (talk) 07:06, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 5 December 2015 (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.