Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microfranchising

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. MBisanz ^talk 03:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Microfranchising

Delete. An advertisement, nothing encyclopedic. Also fails WP: COI. Article is the author's first contribution to Wikipedia. MrShamrock (talk) 10:16, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no advertising in the article, which discusses a well-known concept whose popular use can be easily revealed by a google search. Multiple reliable sources in the Literature section establish the subject's notability. And I don't see any evidence of a COI violation: certainly the fact that the article was created by a user's first wiki edit is not in and of itself evidence of a COI. Baileypalblue (talk) 11:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - encyclopaedic, patently bizarre to suggest it's an advertisement. Wily D 14:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article is currently in poor shape. But topic is encyclopedic. LK (talk) 15:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, weakly. The tone of this is abysmal:

easily replicable business opportunities ... proven methodologies ... provides affordable opportunities for the people at the BOP (base of the pyramid) to own and operate small businesses that have been tested and come with an operations manual ... Microfranchising coupled with microfinance becomes a very powerful development tool.

The concept seems worthy of an article, though. I may edit out the vague peacock terms and leave a stub here. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've added the above line to indicate that all comments below refer to a new version of the article. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I have edited the page, attempting to restate it in less PoV terms, to purge the article of some of its peacock language and grandiose vagueness. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 21:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 18:00, 14 January 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.