Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business in Maryland

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 no consensus. There seems to be no agreement about whether the article can be improved to overcome the nominator's concerns with it. Issues like "synthesis, OR, essay-like, peacock words" are all issues with the content of the article, not the subject. The keep voters make a convincing argument that the subject may be able to be covered in an appropriate way. I think the best course of action is to give the author(s) some time to make improvements, and then revisit this at another AfD if it is deemed necessary. ‑Scottywong | squeal _ 17:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Business in Maryland[edit]

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

Messy, incoherent glob of original research with dubious sourcing ("Maryland Division of Tourism, Film and the Arts." — what from it?). Synthesis, OR, essay-like, peacock words. I don't think that the article is reparable as a.) there are no other "Business in state" articles, and b.) the title itself is too generic and casts too broad a scope. Note that the same author made the identically craptacular article Biotechnology in Maryland, whose own AFD has a few deletes already. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 21:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete - per nom.--ukexpat (talk) 22:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This has many of the same problems as Biotechnology in Maryland, where I also support deletion. It has the same excessively promotional tone and collection of Maryland-related facts massaged into suggesting synthesis-type conclusions. Obviously, some of the statements present here could be included in the Maryland article but I don't see how this could be pared down to an encyclopedic article that is compliant with policy. Chillllls (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sounds more like a brochure from the Chamber of Commerce than an article. Advert, essay-ish. Dennis Brown (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. --Mollskman (talk) 03:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided - This is harder than the biotechnology article because the biotech article is such a small specific niche, whereas "commerce" or "business" in a state seems like a worthwhile subject. But this article is infested with promotional tone. Take that away, and I don't know how much more information there is than what's already in the Economy section of Maryland. We do have "Economy of ..." articles for some of the larger states. I would be ok with that being extended here, although if there's not enough worthwhile material to form a separate article, by all means integrate it into the Maryland article. I think the author expressed some interest in improving the two, so they should probably be userfied in any case. Shadowjams (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, but edit - This article has been posted/maintained for three years and not received tags or controversy until now. It was one of the few articles to receive a B-rating (only 279 out of 8841 articles received this) and was rated as high-importance on Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland importance scale. I agree that it has some promotional language issues and now that I am more familiar with wikipedia guidelines I will work to remove them. Despite what Ten Pound Hammer says, the article is very well sourced (I fixed the Tourism reference he mentioned, apologies for that) using third party references such as the Census Bureau, National Science Foundation, US Dept. of Labor, etc. As Shadowjams mentioned, there are already expanded Economy of State articles so there's no reason Maryland shouldn't have an expanded article about it's economy -- I welcome any and all edits to remove any promotional sounding elements. Thanks for listening. Mdbizauthor (talk) 13:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is representative of an important class of articles. The material is too extensive to be treated properly in the general state article, and it;s important part of the necessary information about any state or similar entity. There seems to be a feeling here that business is not a significant part of the world, or not worth encyclopedia coverage, which is pure prejudice; I have very little interest, but then I have very little interest in about 2/3 of the material covered here, & I'm not preparing an encyclopedia for my own use only. It's been mentioned that this attracts spam, but I don't think it does so more than any other articles. Our articles on entertainment or sports or education attract spam also, and the fanboys can be much harder to deal with than the pr people. Since we are concerned with neutrality and encyclopedic importance, we can do a much netter job of this sort of topic than a chamber of commerce, which will feel obliged to give a positive spin to everything and mention as many as possible of the companies that support them. DGG ( talk ) 18:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well put, DGG. The importance of this article cannot be denied and I think that it helps explain why it received a high importance and b rating in Wikipedia:WikiProject Maryland. While it still needs a little more work, I have spent a lot of time improving the article over the last week and making it sound less promotional. I fixed the questionable reference and the article is well-supported by reputable third party sources. Most seem to agree the topic is a worthy one. I hope everyone will take a look and reconsider their vote before tomorrow's decision. I strongly believe there is enough substance in the article for it to avoid deletion and be improved upon by the wiki community. Ferddog (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC) (name change, formerly mdbizauthor)[reply]

Delete Not suitable for encyclopedia 139.149.1.230 (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly passes WP:GNG with all the sources in the article, and the other issues (original research, synthesis, peacock words) can be handled through normal editing. WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST is also not a valid reason for deletion. If the article is too broad, parts of it can be spun off into new articles. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 14:53, 18 April 2012 (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.