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. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 17:03, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hybrid Organizations (Microsoft)

[edit]

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

This is a marketing strategy disguised as an essay, disguised as an article, with references that don't support the idea that this is a notable concept or term. Dennis Brown (talk) 00:01, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:45, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. This text was dumped into the Hybrid organization page (that's an article on the organizational theory concept of mixed public / private (ie hybrid) organizations). Deb put the Microsoft text on there, 'incorporat[ing] material from redirected article'. I moved the material on Microsofts product to a new page because it had nothing whatsoever to do with the original page. I'm all for deleting it; just don't move it back to the Hybrid organization page because it doesn't belong there. --Irisv (talk) 11:23, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't understand the reason for User:Deb incorporating the material here but it looks to me we have lost attribution (twice?). I agree the material was not appropriate for Hybrid organization. Seeing as there has presumably been a (rather technical) breach of copyright within WP, I suggest this article is deleted. However, my feeling is the article possibly does establish notability, though through its external links. Thincat (talk) 17:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —Tom Morris (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's a pretty clear consensus: so far we've got three votes for deletion, and zero against. --Irisv (talk) 10:07, 2 January 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.