Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft in Tunisia

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. Stifle (talk) 18:54, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft in Tunisia

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

(1) The article is based fundamentally on primary sources. Specifically, we're talking about a report by a third-party, namely a US diplomat, who met with Microsoft representatives. This diplomat did not have access to the terms of the agreement and its not clear that he discussed the deal with Tunisian representatives. In some places, the author of the cable makes clear that he is speculating based on his knowledge of the country but without hard facts. This is not a source that we should be using directly, it requires secondary sources to put it into context. (2) Where secondary sources are used, they don't seem to be doing much more than quoting the cable. This is particularly true of the cited ZDNet and Techweekeurope articles. (3) Is there any notability here? The title of the article, Microsoft in Tunisia, is a bit misleading. This is an article about a specific business deal that was concluded in 2006, not about Microsoft's activities in Tunisia in general. Is every multimillion dollar business deal notable? It seems to me that the only notability stems from the novelty of the leak of the cable. GabrielF (talk) 03:52, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is now the 3rd AfD on this article in less than a fortnight: see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Microsoft_Tunisia_Scandal and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Tunisia Scandal (2nd nomination) both prior to its retitling. Perhaps a period for editing, discussion on its title using the Talk:Microsoft in Tunisia, etc., i.e. the normal article improvement apparatus, would be better? AllyD (talk) 05:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two AFD's offered no policy grounds for deletion. The discussion in those cases focused on the nominator's conflict of interest and (in my opinion) missed the fundamental question - whether or not an article can reasonably be written on a topic when coverage consists entirely of a primary source and a few trade publications that reprint that source without further analysis. It's not clear to me that the normal article improvement process can work on this article for reasons that were not explored in the previous AfDs. GabrielF (talk) 06:44, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This topic passes the threshold of WP:N, with enough sources available to support a Wikipedia article. Please note that the All Africa articles listed below are all paywalled, and the article links provide only partial coverage of content within those articles:

Diplomats questioned Microsoft deal with Tunisian regime. The Register.
Microsoft's North Africa Opportunity and Challenge. The North Africa Journal.
Wikileaks: Microsoft aided former Tunisian regime. ZD Net.
Latest WikiLeaks: Microsoft aided dictator. Salon.
Microsoft’s Close Watch of North Africa: Lobbying for IT Upgrades and Strong Anti Piracy Enforcement. The North Africa Journal.
Tunisia: Microsoft Opens A Subsidiary In Tunisia. All Africa.
Tunisia: Microsoft Supports Country's Employment Strategy. All Africa.
Tunisia: Nation and Microsoft to Set Up Excellence Center for New Educational Technologies. All Africa.
Tunisia: Education Minister Meets With Regional Microsoft Director General. All Africa.
Tunisia: ICT - Microsoft Launches 'BizSpark' Program in Gafsa. All Africa.
Tunisia: Microsoft Launches 'Intajyia' Program. All Africa.
Tunisia: 'Basma' Association and Microsoft, Honor Disabled University Graduates. All Africa.

– Northamerica1000^(talk) 21:00, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article exists solely because of its exciting origin—a wikileak. If someone had created Microsoft in Brazil using a regular media outlet to verify that Microsoft had entered into negotiations with various levels of government and educational institutions in order to promote their products, and to displace other products, there would be no discussion because such an article would fall in the obviously how business is done category. The fact that major companies push their products with as many governments as possible is not notable unless secondary sources write articles about the particular situation with focus on the issue, and comments on its significance. At the moment, all the article has is a leaked document and a brief flurry of media commentary on that. This is an article effectively based on a press release about an ordinary day-to-day event, where the press release was actually a leaked document. What would be more notable would be if someone could find a country where Microsoft has not attempted what is reported in the article. If there is ever some encyclopedic information regarding Microsoft's actions in a particular country, the article can be recreated with a very brief mention of the fact that some cables were leaked. If the article were properly edited to remove all the original research (factoids that an editor felt were interesting), there would be nothing but a stub: Microsoft negotiated a deal with a government; Microsoft is searching for new markets; Microsoft has a problem with piracy. The previous AfDs should be disregarded as the nominator was clearly unaware of how Wikipedia works—no discussion occurred in those AfDs other than to point out the inappropriate statement from the nominator. Johnuniq (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 08:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per verifiability and third party sources, article lacks them both. Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 20:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as Johnuniq points out, this is utterly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL in all respects, except for the media having jumped all over it very briefly because "omg a leak". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 07:38, 2 August 2013 (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.