Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SharePointCOE

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. $Salvio giuliano$ 09:19, 28 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

SharePointCOE

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Procedural nomination per Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2025_September_13#SharePointCOE; that discussion did not appear to turn up any sources that could satisfy notability. Pinging RfD particpants 1234qwer1234qwer4, Thryduulf, Tavix, consarn, Cremastra, Lunamann, VolatileAnomaly Rusalkii (talk) 05:09, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. jolielover♥talk 06:41, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
speedy delete as g6 per that rfd, with no opposition to tacking a1 or a3 in as well for good measure. this time, i can say for sure that this was restored against consensus (and even if you ignore the actual discussion, the people voting to restore didn't seem too keen on its actual content or successful in finding sources), so this is far from the least destructive option

hell, even ignoring all of that, you might as well toss g1 into the pile, as it fails to elaborate on anything and has outright misleading links, as why would microsoft have a tool for preaching christianity (what else could they have meant by evangelization?) and sharing one piece of their software exclusively between one specific series of computers released 16 years before said piece of software and had nothing to do with microsoft or windows (on top of apparently not even selling all that well)? an average reader would think this was some kind of joke, either on microsoft's part for creating software with two purposes so oddly specific yet completely unrelated for hardware from a different company with an entirely different operating system, or on wikipedia's part for just slamming words together in the vague shape of something coherent and calling it an article, but they wouldn't walk away actually knowing anything about sharepoint coe or what it actually was consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 07:02, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding evangelism, see software evangelism. As for your "restoring against consensus" that's the least intelligible thing I've ever seen you say. It can't be speedily deleted, taking all the criteria you throw at the wall in order:

G6 - the history suggests this was created deliberately so it wasn't an error
A1 - The subject of the article is unambiguous from the article
A3 - The article is short but it goes beyond rephrasing the title
G1 - If you think this article is incoherent gibberish then you do not have sufficient competence with the English language to be contributing to English Wikipedia. I know that is not the case so I can only presume your comment is intentionally unhelpful hyperbole - even if you disagree with something it is still important to contribute in good faith.

I see nothing misleading or joking about this - I just see a link that goes to the wrong target: Enterprise (computer) is a very reasonable guess at either Windows Enterprise or Enterprise software. Thryduulf (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

admittedly, i'm only kind of not feeling this

the specific flavor of g6 would be db-xfd, thought that would've gone without saying
i'm pretty sure the explanation for a1 is over reading a different csd, but eh. being unambiguous from the article doesn't do much for proving that something actually exists. in this case, it's lucky that proof can be found (if not in forms that are usable here), but upon closer examination, it took me a while to find something that actually seemed to define the term, as opposed to just dropping the name and hoping someone would get it
for g1, even you need to make guesses for what it might have intended to say. if that's not a hallmark of the kind of nonsense wp:tnt was written for, i don't know what nonsense is

on another note, the article as it is, or at least the current approximation of what it might have been, seems to be... wrong about what sharepoint coe actually is? results were all over the place with what the term could actually mean, but few to none seemed to actually line up with a center of excellence is (beyond being ads for their own centers running on sharepoint), suggest that it's a misnomer, or line up with this article. i thought i would've been embarrassed by my 4 am ramblefest, but things surprisingly only got worse once i properly woke up~ consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 14:00, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do agree with Thryduulf that speedy deletion doesn't apply here. Rusalkii made a fair non consensus assessment on the grounds the RfD was controversial due to the "perennial question of when it is acceptable for RfD to delete BLARed articles with history", which rules out G6 as "uncontroversial housekeeping". G1 is also intended for blatant nonsense such as keyboard spam (asiudhfguiawhrfgtiu) or word salad ("purple elephant blanket tree sky yesterday walking pizza"), and explicitly excludes "poor writing". To address one more unmentioned criteria, A7 also doesn't apply since the page isn't a person, organization, or website.

Speedy deletion should be handled cautiously due to it's very nature of bypassing consensus. Therefore, by design, even the slightest whiff of disagreement is enough to rule out CSD. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 20:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

thought i mentioned before, but a7 would probably have worked as web content, but from the "closer research" above, it would instead have likely been db-inc. oops but not oops?

that aside, the non consensus assessment doesn't really work when the consensus was already that there was no consensus about which venue something should go to beyond the inconvenient definitions at wp:xfd that say redirects go to this frightening place called rfd and not much else, and the however many preceding discussions really didn't do much to actually dent that idea. this is to say that if it's treated on a case-by-case basis, this was against consensus to not restore and multiple voters' fruitless research (oh hey one of them was you~)

also also, the possessive form of "it" doesn't have an apostrophe consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:21, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

and yes, per this and what's going on just below, i do think g6 would still apply. the arguments for restoration said nothing about the actual content and were proven unnecessary by research like your own, so if i was an uninvolved admin, i'd be reluctant to even count them. i don't even think this would be a case of iar unless there was some rule prohibiting rfd from involving research of this nature consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:28, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No comments about the validity of the close (the cat's out of the bag and I don't want to get involved further), but the fact remains it wasn't a delete close and therefore must be settle with policies and discussion rather than a simple G6. Even in the RfD I realized there might be admins unwilling to make a WP:NOTBURO close, hence my "fruitless research" to cover all the bases. Now has this been a waste of time? absolutely. Will someone start an RfC that fixes this issue at the root? I hope so, but probably won't happen. And thanks for catching that grammar mistake, this is why I'll never consider myself a WikiGnome — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:05, 27 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this meant to imply an issue with my close, but for the record my personal preference would have been for deletion, but I don't think I could have closed the discussion that way without it being essentially a super vote. Rusalkii (talk) 00:24, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rusalkii, for what it's worth I absolutely think you could have closed the discussion as 'delete' without it being a super !vote. There were 5 participants !voting for deletion and only 2 for restoration, which at 71.4% is enough for consensus sans strong arguments from the minority. A strong argument for restoration would be providing evidence for notability, but that was completely absent from that discussion. One restore !vote was purely on procedural grounds (the weakest of arguments) and the other one was essentially a hope and prayer that it'd 'get some love' at AfD (which isn't much better). It looks like because of the extra discussion, perhaps you were simply too afraid to push the delete button because it had the appearance of being more controversial or closer than it actually was? -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oh, to see a policy explicitly against the "maybe it'll get more love in this other venue" argument... consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:23, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The least we can do is demonstrate its fallaciousness when it comes up. -- Tavix ^(talk) 15:29, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i did already state that i'd be doing that, but it would definitely be simpler with an actual statement on the matter. it's not even something i think would be hard to get consensus for adding to wp:ata consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:44, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"A strong argument for restoration would be providing evidence for notability, but that was completely absent from that discussion. One restore !vote was purely on procedural grounds (the weakest of arguments) and the other one was essentially a hope and prayer that it'd 'get some love' at AfD (which isn't much better)." This is exactly what's under debate, though. I don't want to rehash the argument (especially because, as I said, I agree with you on the merits), but the case for "restore" is exactly that providing evidence for notability is irrelevant to the question of whether this is within RfD's jurisdiction, and I don't think this is remotely a settled question at RfD. I would absolutely love to see it settled! But as I do not think I could have closed this without taking a stance on exactly the question under debate, which I do not think is so obvious that I can discard the arguments against. I suppose on a pure number counting basis I could have closed this as delete, and I think that would have been defensible, but the underlying debate I think very clearly does not have consensus. Rusalkii (talk) 17:35, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, what's at debate is the existence of the redirect "SharePointCOE". Those !voting delete by-and-large addressed that question and those !voting restore did not address that question...instead wanting the question punted elsewhere. If you'd love to see it settled, your closure did not help with that—as I hope you can now see by how this thread is progressing. Furthermore, I'm interested to know if or what you see differently with Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 September 13#SharePointCOE vs Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 15#Tsunami vs hurricane: two discussions with identical !vote counts (5 to 2) and the same procedural distractions therein. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:02, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

here's what i want to know:

what's the logic behind assuming that all votes against a blar, be they for restoring or deleting, are necessarily opposing its status as a blar in such a method that they either are irrelevant or automatically support restoring unless it meets a csd? this is something i've never understood, and that's backfired in this very rfd with cremastra's vote
what policy, guideline, essay, discussion, or even precedent do you have to cite for rfd's seeming lack of qualification or authorization to handle blars or their content, and what difference does it make when many of the votes on afd are for the exact same reasons and/or from the exact same people? if it needs saying, this one should be easier to answer, as only a sixth of this isn't a trick question i can cite a discussion or precedent to immediately contradict
what gives any weight to votes to restore that have nothing to do with the content actually being restored, especially when the voters themselves claim it's unfortunate that it "has" to happen when it doesn't meet stuff like gng?
what in this case prevents people stating in no ambiguous terms that they found nothing usable in rfd from being qualified as "settling the case"?

those are the kinds of question marks that still exist to this day, and curiously from only one side consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:09, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Consarn, please don't jump down my throat about an opinion I don't hold, I have already said that on the merits I would've !voted to delete this at RfD.

Nothing would make me happier than being able to close all of these with reference to "according to this RfC, the circumstances in which RfD can delete a BLARed article are X, Y, and Z, and everyone arguing against it is arguing against well established consensus". Otherwise we're just going in circles, and I don't intend to get drawn into the argument on the merits beyond what I've said above. If you think my close was incorrect you are welcome to submit it to WP:DRV, I won't take offense or anything. Rusalkii (talk) 03:11, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Rusalkii, the issue is that there was consensus to delete at the RfD, but you were somehow unable to find it. That's a big deal and it's one we're trying to get to the bottom of. I do appreciate that you said that you would have !voted to delete at the RfD, but these questions are more for trying to figure out how you're weighing arguments. That said, if you find yourself in this position in the future, perhaps !vote to delete instead of closing? That would make consensus even more solid for the next admin who comes along. As for an RfC, personally I'd fine one unnecessary. WP:DELPRO#RFD already details exactly what can be deleted at RfD: Redirects, including soft redirects, in any namespace. A consensus would need to be established to add an exception to that, but one will not develop based on discussions that have occurred to date. (For what it's worth, WP:DRV is not an option here as it would unnecessarily parallel this discussion already in progress. This page will be deleted before any decision could be made there so it'd end up being closed as moot.) -- Tavix ^(talk) 04:18, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

i will apologize for how harsh this comes off as, but also agree with tavix that this entire discussion is happening against consensus to delete based on a discussion in which the side against straightforward deletion had no actual argument towards the content and was conventionally outnumbered, was followed by years of precedent and multiple month-long discussions that at best deliberately went nowhere and at worst resulted in arguments towards procedural restoration being (hopefully mis)interpreted as assumptions of incompetence in rfd's part (see also the rfd), and in this case, only resulted in a rehash of the exact same discussions that happened before and likely will still happen again

you can say the formal discussions are going in circles on the specific policies regarding where blars should go, sure, but as it stands, arguments towards taking things to other venues have boiled down to "procedures" that don't actually exist, so i really don't think taking it here helped things beyond proving arguments towards afd to be downright wrong in practice (which i guess is something i should thank you for!?). this is to say, i do think this is a case where the action you took was erroneous and shouldn't have happened, so i will again suggest a g6 or snow deletion, avoiding this in the future, and not taking it to drv so we don't ignore the consensus already established here and discuss something almost point-for-point in a third venue for what amounts to no actual reason related to contesting a deletion, dios mio consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 11:47, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, in fact if the majority of uninvolved commenters on a DRV would think this close wasn't at minimum within closure discretion I want to know about it! I didn't suggest DRV as a brush-off or because I think it would be great fun to have this hashed out in yet a third place, I think that's actually useful information I want to have, and not what the AfD has focused on except in this conversation between participants in the original RfD. I don't intent to take myself there but that was in fact the motivation here.

In any case I don't intend to close or particpate any further discussions where this is in question any time soon. Rusalkii (talk) 06:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

wait, what? what would drv accomplish that achieving the same consensus in two separate venues (plus all the other stuff that preceded this i guess) wouldn't? this is like arguing that something would get "more love" in another venue, in that it doesn't work without a guarantee that uninvolved editors will pop up. if anything, this very afd should serve as proof that that's unlikely to actually go according to keikaku

(translator's note: "keikaku" means "plan") consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 11:46, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's too late for a WP:DRV since we are now here ... but errors like this are why I was originally in the "neutral" column in Rusalkii's RfA: I had a suspicion that they weren't ready enough for the mop. I guess consider this a learning experience. Steel1943 (talk) 20:04, 23 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

oops, thought i sent this before

honestly, i don't think this is the kind of problem that would bring someone's qualification for adminship into question. if it was, there would definitely be a couple more people to scrutinize. i'm not gonna say it's not still the kind of thing i'll be able to cite as precedent that something isn't a good idea, but as far as those things go, i've still seen "worse" from people who have been admins for longer, were also relatively new admins, or were that wonk from rfd (cogsan, i think it was) consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 11:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not implying the need for an ~~WP:RFAA~~ WP:RRFA at all. What I'm saying is that I noticed some issues during the time during the RfA that had me question their ability to make judgement decisions. I was obviously in the minority there, so it's whatever, but this situation/close, which has been basically declared a mistake, usually occurs due to inadequate experience closing discussions. Again, this should be chalked up as a learning experience for the RfD closer. (But quite frankly though, someone has to close that discussion, and ... seems there was a high probability that there would have been someone scrutinizing the close, probably no matter what its result would have been.) Steel1943 (talk) 16:28, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that the nearly identical discussion Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 August 15#Tsunami vs hurricane was closed as delete with zero issue, I would push back against the idea that a delete closure would have been scrutinized. -- Tavix ^(talk) 18:05, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

...And I have an example (but forgot the RfD) where I did basically the same type of close as Rusalkii did here, and I was scrutinized. And the resulting AfD discussion wasn't WP:SNOW (if I recall). I like to call it "WP:CCC's flavor of the month". Steel1943 (talk) 18:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough, though i personally don't think it's the kind of thing that would affect anyone's track record either way. i'm also not entirely sure it even applies in the case of an admin, since closing as restore isn't a right exclusive to admins

though if this was closed as delete, that would likely have been it for this specific discussion since it'd just be added to the pile, since this is probably the one most likely to be cited consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 18:11, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: Fixed acronym. Steel1943 (talk) 19:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We have not achieved consensus in this venue on the question of whether my no consensus close was correct, which is the contentious point. No one uninvolved in the previous discussion has commented on this question, as opposed to the question of whether the article in front of us should be deleted. I don't really care if I get an answer to that here or at DRV or by people dropping by my talk page to send me a letter by carrier pidgeon this isn't a procedural complaint :p but as the closer the thing that interests me the most is whether there is actually a general problem with my close, so I don't do it again if so. As I said, I don't actually intend to drag myself there about it, but if there's further debate about whether my close was correct I think looking for uninvolved input is the way to do it and DRV is the obvious way to do that. Rusalkii (talk) 17:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

it's not much of a no consensus case when it's a 5-2 turned 7-0 (counting you). if this discussion is anything to go by, a drv would just come to the conclusion that there was consensus... so why not just treat this discussion as that conclusion?

if a discussion were to be started, it'd almost definitely be more about what happens before the closure so that the closure is a little less likely to be considered controversial for like 3 years afterwards, like a time set for the r part of a blar becoming the status quo (my money's on 30 days), what's worth restoring (my money's on whatever has three or more usable sources and the restorer or nom thinks isn't best just added to the target), and whether votes to restore based purely on procedure actually count (my money's on no), but it wouldn't be a drv, and it already wasn't a drv, and it already wasn't a drv, and it already wasn't a drv, and- consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:00, 24 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot find any significant coverage. Anonrfjwhuikdzz (talk) 11:47, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I've attempted a WP:BEFORE at the RfD to see if suitable sources could be located, but wasn't able to locate any reliable, independent sources. Similarly, as the page currently stands there isn't substantial content to be merged, at best there would be a section on Sharepoint demonstrating that SharePointCOE exists. — 🪫Volatile ^{📲T | ⌨️C} 19:31, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is possibly not an unambiguous A1, but when all this page has is one very confusing sentence, it's time for WP:TNT. Somepinkdude (talk) 20:15, 21 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, yet another unnecessary AfD discussion because a vocal minority at RfD is unwilling to take out their own trash. -- Tavix ^(talk) 14:50, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I was wrong in my !vote in RFD, someone please trout me. There are times when the "Oh, maybe it'll get some love if it's unBLAR'd" makes sense; there are times when the "This should not have been BLAR'd without discussion" makes sense. This is not either one of those, and I will concede that; I will also point out that we DO have a relevant essay to cite in such situations as these, and it's WP:SNOW. 𝔏𝔲𝔫𝔞𝔪𝔞𝔫𝔫🌙🌙🌙 𝔗𝔥𝔢 𝔐𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔬𝔫𝔦𝔢𝔰𝔱 (talk) 20:03, 22 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Make it a redirect to SharePoint since its too small to be its own wiki article. Someone667 (talk) 19:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to what, and why? consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 19:33, 25 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Read it again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Someone667 (talk • contribs) 11:11, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

then nope, it's unmentioned in the target and the rfd already works as consensus against this specific act consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 12:52, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

now its mentioned in the target Someone667 (talk) 14:04, 26 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

reverted already. the sources you found weren't reliable (one wasn't even independent), didn't really support what was said beyond kinda defining what a center of excellence is, were heavily promotional (as was the wording that came with them), and most importantly, weren't about sharepoint coe (oh yeah there's a space). hell, they didn't even mention sharepoint to begin with. that was effectively just two random paragraphs dedicated to a glossary entry, and would've been just as fitting in whatsapp, which is to say "not very". it also didn't actually say much to differentiate a coe from a group chat, so for all that tells the average reader, #staff-feet-pics in some random discord server is a coe consarn _{(grave) (obituary)} 15:09, 26 September 2025 (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.