Business Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Software: Computing Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Software, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of software on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SoftwareWikipedia:WikiProject SoftwareTemplate:WikiProject Softwaresoftware ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

I have so many problems with this article...

• Most of the text of this article seems like a disjointed essay from a business textbook, taken out of context, that uses some sort of businessspeak jargon created specifically for a textbook-e.g., "consumer advantages", "income profits" (what other sorts of profits are there?), "profit margin targets". Basically the entire "Behind the logo" section makes little sense to me - I'm not sure what the original author's intent was, or what sources he consulted to write this. Critics of sponsorship?
• There are zero sources cited. -e.g. " It can be said that corporations sponsor for the interests of themselves and not for the viewer" --it can be said by who? and who is "the viewer"?
• Non neutral POV - lots of 'weasel words' - e.g. "most critics would agree", "It can be said that ", "many would agree" -maybe this isn't weasel words, maybe it's just that it needs citations?
• Assertions are not backed up by any supporting ideas--e.g., "Sponsorship is also becoming increasingly important in education.", which is followed by text about Forumla One racing, televised events, general sporting events, and then finally by college sporting events. A link between sponsoring of a college sporting and its importance to education is not established. Also, the example about radio stations is redundant-basically a short summary of the sustaining program entry- and its relevance as an alternative/contrast to (advertising) sponsorship is not established.
• I am not entirely convinced that 'sponsor' needs an encyclopedia entry in the first place--it seems that a dictionary entry would suffice. I have already removed the etymology that a previous author included.

I'm a new to contributing to wikipedia, so I'll have to read up on what to do to fix this, but I think this article needs massive editing.Aplasman 05:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In theory I think the article should be deleted as it is a definition not an encyclopaedia entry. It is also not high quality. Provided you don't put in links etc I don't think anyone will mind you trying to improve it in a major way... but if no worthy content turns up I guess it will go eventually --BozMo talk 18:28, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article should be deleted - I don't see any useful content that isn't dictionary-esque. I don't have any special knowledge about 'sponsor' (I just saw this page and though it needed help), so I have no content to add to make this an encyclopaedic entry. But it is marked as part of the Wikipedia CD selection, which I really know nothing about--although having read your user page, it seems you do. Will deleting this article affect the WPCD somehow? Also, I don't know how to go about deleting an article yet.Aplasman 17:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, no prob with the tag. The tag just means someone has proposed it. It would get filtered out before the actual CD is done. I suggest you follow WP:AfD on the article: good way to see how it works! --BozMo talk 21:51, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]