Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commercial credit reporting

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 keep. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 23:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Commercial credit reporting[edit]

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

Contested prod (although not by the creator) over a non-notable essay about a subject with questionable notability to begin with. I would userfy it, but more than one editor worked on it. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 07:28, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep One simply has to click on the google books link above to see the great notability of this topic. The nomination thus fails our deletion policy. The fact that the prod was contested should have been a good clue that the topic required further work and discussion before bringing it here. The nominator has not engaged in discussion on the article's talk page. Colonel Warden (talk) 07:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That isn't required. In addition, Colonel, when a prod tag is removed, all that really means is one user doesn't agree with the deletion. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 21:39, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, I didn't just remove the prod, I added a citation to a substantial article in the LA Times. I also started a discussion page with links to the numerous sources about this topic. You failed to engage with these improvements in any way. Instead, you have started this discussion but you now see that there is no consensus for the proposal that the article be deleted. Please withdraw. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your history, Colonel, and with all due respect, people aren't always going to do whatever you want. I have no problem with the article being userfied, but I don't feel it belongs in the mainspace (not in it's current form, anyway). THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 03:15, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge. The article needs sources, cleanup and wikifying but it seems like a notable topic. I'm not sure if it should be merged with Credit bureau but they do seem to cover the same topic (although I am no expert). The article seems to contain some useful information but I'm not sure if it should be merged with credit report, Credit score (United States) or credit bureau (again, not an expert)) – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 08:18, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge/redirect/ or userfy notable article, which has a lot of WP:POTENTIAL, but it appears to be in its early stages. Ikip (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - If userfying is being considered, as was suggested above by User:Ikip, I submit that it might be better to move this article to WP:INCUBATOR, a new project that is essentially the same as the userfy option, except it's in a central area, in the project namespace. The advantages of incubation over userfication are that more eyes will see the article, and that it won't sit there indefinitely out of sight if no improvement occurs.
Thanks for your consideration. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:58, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The article's name is a reasonable search term and statistics tell us that the article was read 165 times in August. By moving the article elsewhere, we might reduce the number of potential editors for the article. If the incubator project wishes to work upon fresh articles then it would best do so via links to mainspace. In this way we can be sure that the number of potential editors is increased rather than replaced. It is our clear editing policy to work upon weak articles in mainspace and 99% of our articles are of less than good quality. This AFD is not the place to change our fundamental way of working. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's why I'm only suggesting it as an alternative to userfying. If it can remain in the mainspace, that's obviously preferable. Only if userfying or deletion is to be its fate do I suggest incubation. The incubator is not a place to move articles that can possibly stay in the mainspace. Perhaps I was insufficiently clear on that point?
    I don't know why you think I'm trying to "change our fundamental way of working". I'm just pointing out that there's something slightly better than userfication, if userfication or deletion are the only options. Obviously improving it in the mainspace is the best option. Should I be clearer about that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 10:28, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Colonel, what does how many times the article was read have to do with anything? For all we now, "random article" clicks could be included in that count. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 08:06, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On average, we might expect 23 of those 165 readers to have reached the article via the random link. This is fine as this feature is often used by editors trawling the project for articles to work upon. How did you come to the article? Colonel Warden (talk) 09:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nobody is discussing if the article should be kept or deleted. Whether or not its userfied or "incubated" or whatever is not the point. I would get back to the nominator's concerns about the subject and the article being notable enough. I think something should be done with this information, either merged into an appropriate article or worked on so it meets WP:MoS. It also desperately needs sources. – sampi ^{(talk•contrib•email)} 13:31, 18 September 2009 (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.