| Revision as of 20:23, 1 February 2013 editSandstein (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators188,269 edits Closing debate, result was keep← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 18:37, 6 February 2023 edit undoMalnadachBot (talk | contribs)11,637,095 editsm Fixed Lint errors. (Task 12)Tag: AWB | ||
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
| Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | Note: If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to re-nominate an article for deletion, you must manually edit the AfD nomination links to create a new discussion page using the name format of ]. When you create the new discussion page, please provide a link to this old discussion in your nomination. --> | ||
| The result was '''keep'''. Consensus is that the article should be improved (which in fact the FDIC are welcome to do themselves) rather than deleted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | The result was '''keep'''. Consensus is that the article should be improved (which in fact the FDIC are welcome to do themselves) rather than deleted. <small><span style="border:1px solid black;padding:1px;">]</span></small> 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ===]=== | ===]=== | ||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
| :I admit there is one mayor problem here, that the articles title suggesting the article is giving a description of the current state of the FDIC EA. An alternative solution here is rename the article to something like ], ], or ]. | :I admit there is one mayor problem here, that the articles title suggesting the article is giving a description of the current state of the FDIC EA. An alternative solution here is rename the article to something like ], ], or ]. | ||
| :-- ] (]) 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | :-- ] (]) 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | ||
| :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | :<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the ]. ★☆ ]☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)</small> | ||
| <hr style="width:55%;" /> | <hr style="width:55%;" /> | ||
| :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /> | :<span style="color:#FF4F00;">'''] to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.'''</span><br /> | ||
| Line 38: | Line 38: | ||
| *'''Keep'''. If the information is outdated, by their own admission it means it is a matter worth having information about. They can read ] and propose ameliorations to the article. ] (]) 01:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) | *'''Keep'''. If the information is outdated, by their own admission it means it is a matter worth having information about. They can read ] and propose ameliorations to the article. ] (]) 01:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| *'''Keep and rename''', see above. -- ] (]) 22:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | *'''Keep and rename''', see above. -- ] (]) 22:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page. <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | :''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's ] or in a ]). No further edits should be made to this page.'' <!--Template:Afd bottom--></div> | ||
Latest revision as of 18:37, 6 February 2023
- 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. Consensus is that the article should be improved (which in fact the FDIC are welcome to do themselves) rather than deleted. Sandstein 20:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework
- FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Per this OTRS ticket, an executive with the FDIC is requesting that this article be deleted. Their nomination statement is as follows: "We would like to ask you to nominate the article for deletion on our behalf. The information is greatly out dated and some of the information was never correct. It is not just a matter of updating a few sentences - the entire entry is invalid.
Thank you, <redacted>"
Please note this request is being made as a courtesy, and the fact that it is made by an OTRS respondent should have no bearing on whether or not to delete the article. Tiptoety 04:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
- There have been earlier signals that some people are not satisfied with this article. In the past 2.5 years this article is (partly) blanked several times. Two years ago they already tried to make us believe the content is outdated , and last week they claimed: All information in this article is no longer relevant, the article should be deleted. . Unfortunetally attempts to start a discussion , about this have been unsuccessfull so far.
- Now this article is created end 2008 largely by following two documents:
- Implementation of E-Government Principles AUDIT REPORT, Report No. 05-018, May 2005
- CIO Council (2008) Information Technology Strategic Plan 2008–2013, January 23, 2008.
- Now I suppose this is the case:
- In the mean time the FDIC has moved on, and probably considers these sources invalid. In their perspective the whole article is invalid.
- Now this article is created in 2008 to give an illustrative example of how a notable Enterprise Architecture Framework is constructed and under development. From an encyclopedic point of view this is still an interesting example, describing notable events of the new millennium
- I admit there is one mayor problem here, that the articles title suggesting the article is giving a description of the current state of the FDIC EA. An alternative solution here is rename the article to something like FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (1997-2012), FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (2002-08), or FDIC Enterprise Architecture Framework (2008).
- -- Mdd (talk) 00:03, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. If the information is outdated, by their own admission it means it is a matter worth having information about. They can read WP:OUTDATED and propose ameliorations to the article. Alfy32 (talk) 01:35, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
- Keep and rename, see above. -- Mdd (talk) 22:48, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
- 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.