Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Public Tendering

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, then redirect. Xoloz 23:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This page already exists at Tenders. There isn't such a difference in the tendering process between public and private that it needs a separate page. At AfD because the creator objected to a simple redirect. OzLawyer 21:14, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete A cut-and-paste from another article between an unsourced dicdef and an unsupported generalization from Ontario regional government practice. There's nothing here worth saving. JChap T/E 22:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no reason to censor this information form the public. User:OsgoodeLawyer has made it a point to delete from the Tenders page the section refering to the unatural practice of governments to award multi-million dollar public contracts without tenders and I am working with him to edit that page which will make it distinct from this one. All that is required to distinguish the two pages is show the difference between Tenders as a generic term and Public Tenders which is more specific to governmental activities of noteriety.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. WikiWoo, you've been told many times that your accusations of "censorship" are uncivil and uncalled for. Please stop it. As for the article needing to exist, why? The process is the same, except in one instance it is done by public institutions, and in the other it is not. OzLawyer 23:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• If we got a penny every time someone throws tantrums about "censorship" on AfD... With respect to the process being the same, though, I can't agree (see also below). From a business point of view, sure, but as a matter of law it's quite different: Tenders by governments are not only governed by contract law (i.e. civil law, here in the old world), but also by the public law that regulates such aspects of the government procurement procedure as tendering threshold values and exceptions, non-discrimination and transparency rules, possibilities of judicial review etc. All of this affects the procedure of tendering a great deal. So this is a article on public law waiting to be written, not one on commercial usages. Sandstein 22:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You've also been warned about recreating material against consensus. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invited public tenders, where it was decided to merge this material into Tenders. This is part of a pattern of behavior, quite frankly. You refuse to work with the community by following consensus and you don't put any importance on trying to convince people that your edits should be kept because they follow WP policy. Every change to an article you think you own is met with by charges of vandalism and censorship. JChap T/E 00:07, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments The comments the two you make in favour of censorship and watering down anything concrete about municipal government activities is appaling. It is not comming from good faith but some agenda you share with keeping people from knowing facts and details of govermnent activities in Ontario Canada most particularly. From your edits I know that you know as much as I do in many cases but are here to distract my work and to intefer with expansion of public knowledge. I am calling is censorship because you want to keep plainly written material that anyone can understand about these things off and keep adding a POV designed to mislead and confuse readers. I could just as easily call it vandalism. Only its a vandalism with the purpose of censorship and distracting a knowledgeable editor from addding interesting and important public information.Wiki BADASS Woo 2U 00:18, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• agree with nomination. no reason for separate existenc of article, and ideal candidate for merger with Tenders, that way, both will no longer be stubs. Don't see why there should be a prolonged political discussion on the subject. A merged article should maintain a NPOV, meaning we should write only about that which can be sunstantiated. Ohconfucius 04:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- pointless repetition. Should be included in Tenders, and is. --Gary Will 08:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I can't see any content overlap at this moment. More importantly, though, as a jurist professionally involved in government procurement (or public tendering, if one prefers that term) I can attest that as a matter of law and practice it is substantially different from private tendering, at least in countries party to the WTO's Government Procurement Agreement. As such, it deserves its own article, as a merge would probably lead to inapt generalisations with regard to both types of tendering. The article needs a lot of work, though. Sandstein 16:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm loathe to go against the apparent consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Invited public tenders, but your argument is very compelling. One problem: "public tender" can have several meanings. Should this be merged to Public Procurement? JChap T/E 17:54, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I wouldn't recommend that, as Public Procurement redirects to Procurement, which is again a very generic subject matter. We do ought to have an article on the specifics of procurement by the government, though, and I recommend moving the article at issue to Government procurement, which is unambiguous and appears to be an internationally accepted way to refer to this subject matter - at least insofar as the WTO uses it for its work. The previous AfD consensus, incidentally, appears to be that the subject is notable but that the term then used was unverifiable, and that the content ought to be merged because it was just a dicdef. That sort of consensus doesn't preclude recreation as an actual (although not yet very good) article, I would think. I'll try and contribute something if it's kept. Sandstein 18:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, if the article is expanded beyond a stub/dicdef, it would be a great subject. I would think a Government procurement article should be kept. JChap T/E 03:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, unencyclopedic as it stands.--Peta 03:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • vote changed in favor of a new Government Procurement article I agree with the idea of an expanded Government Procurement article and we can add sections dealing with public tendering practices as well as the rules of WTO etc. I think a lot of the material that would be deleted or confused would have a good home there to help expand Wiki to categorize and reference as much interesting information as possible.Wiki The Humble Woo 03:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I would say it's censorship, but I've been censored from doing so. --Tess Tickle 02:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. wikipediatrix 14:10, 16 August 2006 (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.