Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Meeting architecture

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. Cirt (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Meeting architecture[edit]

I do not find evidence of the sort of independent use of this term which would be required to satisfy WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. What use there is seems to be connected to the website http://www.meetingarchitecture.org, run by Maarten Vanneste, the author of the book featured, and also the author Maarten.vanneste (talk · contribs) of this article. This new concept may become notable in the future, but it is not yet, and Wikipedia is not here to help promote it. Delete as advertising and as unsourced neologism. JohnCD (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Event planning. It appears to be a WP:NEO but is a likely search term based on G-hits. Drawn Some (talk) 12:31, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried to put similar comments in advert tag but couldn't figure out how. So, I'm supporting delete but would like a link on tag parameters. Thanks. Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 12:41, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(advice on his talk page) JohnCD (talk) 12:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable neologism and likely coatrack spam, seems to exist chiefly to promote the one mentioned book. The glib, buzzword laden style and trivial rigor of the list are typical of That Sort of Thing, and the text seems evasively abstract and promotional: multidisciplinary profession of designing the content, form and processes in meetings, based on measurable objectives. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 13:59, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NEO Niteshift36 (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note I have copied below two comments which were placed on the article talk page, with my responses. I have marked them both as "Keep" !votes as that is clearly their intention. Both editors are SPAs - these are their only edits. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meeting Architecture is a new discipline that has already a major impact in the design of meetings. Because it is new it seems to me that this is a major reason for explaining to the public what it is about.

Also, the Meetings Industry is in a much needed process of redesigning itself. Meeting Architecture has proven to be instrumental in this.

One more thing: do you know of any new concept, or idea, that hasn't anyone behind it? I don't.

Best wishes,

Maria Lemos

President Sustainable Side of the Street —Preceding unsigned comment added by MariaSustainableSide (talk • contribs) 09:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the point is that Wikipedia is specifically not for explaining new things to the public: subjects have to be notable, best indicated by having "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". That way, Wikipedia editors don't make decisions on whether a new idea is useful, necessary, interesting, deserves publicity etc; we simply ask, have other people, independent of the originator, thought it interesting and important enough to write about? Yes, every new idea has someone behind it, but at the stage when that someone is the person who wants to write about it in Wikipedia, and appears to be the only source for use of the term, it is too early for an article; also, there may be a conflict of interest. More information at WP:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources and WP:NEO#Articles on neologisms. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:21, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think Meeting Architecture deserves a place on Wikipedia but the entry needs needs to be rigorously rewritten. Such a rewrite would acknowledge the writing of Ib Ravn in setting out the early concepts of Meeting Architecture. It would point to the numerous seminars and workshops that have been held on the subject and it would reference the article by Martin Lewis published in the May/June issue of M&IT Magazine in the United Kingdom.

It would also look at some of the practical drawbacks of Meeting Architecture and include case histories highlighting the pros and cons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHKeenan (talk • contribs) 14:49, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - this made me reconsider seriously whether the article should be kept in the hope of improvements along the lines suggested; but a further trawl through Google leaves me unconvinced that this new discipline has, or necessarily will, "take off" enough for an article that meets our requirements for notability in terms of independent reliable sources; at present it all seems to revolve around a particular book or "manifesto", a website, and meetings that are being set up about it. I think time is needed to see whether this is something that will take off and develop, or whether in a few months' time it will be seen to have been just another buzz-word that was briefly fashionable and then died. My recommendation remains to delete, with no prejudice against re-creation in due course if things develop. I will notify editors who have already !voted in case they wish to reconsider. JohnCD (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was notified, nothing new to see here. This article is spam, to be blunt. Drawn Some (talk) 20:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Still Delete : The unsourced outline just elaborates a strategy for

anything- identify something to do, figure out what you need to accomplish, do it, and then figure out how well it worked and try better next time. While I have to admit there are plenty of examples everyday where people don't do this, wiki can not evaluate merit but could perhaps be an e-kindergarten LOL :) What readers would benefit from this entry and how would they find it? Typing meeting architecture into google with other things is probably intended as "meeting architectural objectives" in designing a home or ship. At least try to get a patent or something- am I've probably gotten patents with less original content :) As with home flipping, you only need to find a few people of the billions on the planet who value something more than you do to be successful- you don't need a buyer and loan officer, just a reliable secondary source who can evaluate merit and indicate you have a topic with some accepted art. Even a new theory, no matter how speculative, would be fine, if there was reliable peer reviewed debate about it.

Nerdseeksblonde (talk) 21:01, 15 June 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.