Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Event Management in Pakistan

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 Delete. Johntex\^talk 02:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Event Management in Pakistan[edit]

Not encyclopedic details about current tricks in an unimportant business in a country with comparatively weak service sector (reworded here because the original formulation caused misunderstanding, sorry --Ioannes Pragensis 13:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)). Until we lack articles like "Event Management in Germany" and "Janitory services in the USA", we should IMHO not have articles like this. Non notable, hard to verify. Ioannes Pragensis 08:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. What on earth makes Pakistan a not-so-much-important country? Compared to where? Please explain why an article on 'janitory services in the USA' would be deemed more useful/notable? If Event management is an 'unimportant business', please enlighten us as to what is an important business? Finally, do *you* know anything about 'Event Management in Pakistan'? Markb 08:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to explain: What on earth makes Pakistan a not-so-much-important country? Pakistan is an important country in some aspects; but in the event mgmt, leading countries are somewhere else. The turnover of the business in Pakistan is AFAIK comparably small and its world influence is negligible.

Please explain why an article on 'janitory services in the USA' would be deemed more useful/notable? You do not understand me well. I think that that article would be not encyclopedic as well. It is not reasonable to have here articles about all businesses in all regions, I think. We must select the important ones, in order to ensure enough knowledgeable editors to maintain the articles.

If Event management is an 'unimportant business', please enlighten us as to what is an important business? The rule about important businesses can be derived from WP:CORP. If there is at least one company important enough to fulfill WP:CORP, then the business can be regarded as important. Or at least if all companies in the business, taken together, are important enough to fall under WP:CORP, then we can discuss about it. But I fear that all companies in this business in Pakistan, taken together, are not important enough to match this - at least the article does not indicate it.

Finally, do *you* know anything about 'Event Management in Pakistan'? Please, be not personal. The question of my knowledge is irrelevant here. We should discuss what to do with the article, not try to examine other users. Greetings --Ioannes Pragensis 08:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Transwiki to Wikibooks. Reads like a how-to, which would be perfectly fine elsewhere, but is not suitable as an encylopaedia article, for Wikipedia. GeorgeStepan e k\^talk 09:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could edit it into something more encyclopedic? Kim Bruning 10:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic and unverified.--Peta 11:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We'd keep Event Management in the USA, and the "not-so-much-important country" idea is simply nauseating. OK, I'm converted by the below. Delete. -- GWO
Delete; we would not keep Event Management in the USA, nor should we keep this (let's not get into reverse-systemic bias. Despite the 'not-so-much-important country' line, which is racist garbage. Proto||type 13:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it was not based on racism (I am far from being a racist) but on the comparison of economical strength of the services sectors in different countries. If you would like it, I would surely agree that my own small country is even less important than Pakistan :-) --Ioannes Pragensis 13:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you own a country - cool! Which one? Markb 17:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per Proto. Wickethewok 13:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is an ad, with subsequent POV problems. Tychocat 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Once upon a time we edited ads into articles. Kim Bruning 15:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Once upon a time"... I've heard that phrase somewhere... please note I'm not asking you to do it either. And it'd still be nn. Tychocat 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this appears to be an unnecessary fork in a way. What makes Event Management in Pakistan conceptually different than Event Management in any other country? If this article somehow laid out a strong case that Event Managment in Pakistan comprised a set of unique cirmcumstances that did not apply to Event Management anywhere else in the world I might be persuaded to opine Keep, but that does not appear to be the case. The only difference is that the examples are localized (names of companies, costs of certain services, etc.)... taking those out, this could refer to Event Management anywhere, thus this article is too narrowly focused. Also, content in several places seems to violate WP:NOT a how-to guide.--Isotope23 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep (but moved to Event management in Pakistan). Why wouldn't we keep Event management in the United States or anywhere else? I don't think WP:CORP is the standard for judging an industry -- it's not the individual businesses that are important, but how things are done. Is there really nothing important to say about how event management procedures are handled differently in different countries, and how it came to be that way? There could be interesting details about national culture or history revealed by such an article. Because of that, it's irrelevant how well-known the country is for event management. (In fact, event management in the least-developed country might be the most interesting article.) That said, this article does a poor job of it, and I don't know how easily it can be made into something much better. Step one would be get rid of all the redundancy with event management in general; unfortunately, that's most of the article. If it's an ad, who is it for? Pegasus? Rigadoun 17:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per User:Isotope23, also i feel sum parts of article can be used at Event mangement not a complete merge.. --Sartaj beary 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unencyclopedic. --Musicpvm 16:28, 17 June 2006 (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.