Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Certified Supply Chain Professional (2nd nomination)

Certified Supply Chain Professional (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)

Previously taken to AFD in 2014 with consensus to merge. The article is so full of buzzwords that I can't even penetrate a word of it, so I

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Supply chain management § Certification, per consensus at the previous AfD discussion. The nominator here states that they merged the article, but this is incorrect. Nothing from the article was added to the Supply chain management article (See Revision history) and the nominator here simply redirected to the merge target (diff), which was reverted by another user with the rationale "Per AfD, no merger was performed, hence undoing redirect until the merge is completed" (diff). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• @Northamerica1000: Saying "merge" won't get the merge done. I didn't merge because the article was so ensnared with corporate speak that I felt nothing was salvageable. If you think anything is salvageable, do it yourself; otherwise, you apparently want this article to sit stinking up things forever because no one can ever be arsed to take care of it. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I !voted to merge above, not for it to "sit stinking up things forever". Please focus on content, not on contributors, and please use correct wiki-terminology in AfD nominations. The redirect you performed is not a merge. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to merge it, or just let it sit around forever? If there was a consensus to merge, why not do it your own damn self? Do you want it to sit around forever? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 00:44, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not obligated to perform the merge per your order and I don't base my editing upon your instruction, and per your overall tone here and elsewhere, nor should anyone else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  bold, revert, discuss cycle, than to start another AfD. Today, I rewrote the prose of the article to remove some of the jargon and to give the prose a more neutral tone, in preparation for a merge. Hopefully the article is now more accessible for non-experts. The AfD, however, prevents me from performing a merge until it is closed. --Mark viking (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge again regardless of if someone removed it as the merge is still applicable, we can lock the article if needed. SwisterTwister talk 21:21, 7 February 2016 (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.