Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Microsoft Interview

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 of the debate was no consensus; keep. Johnleemk | Talk 07:02, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — As with the previous AfD, the same reasons there, apply here: Is there even any need for it? It's and interview process; is it just becuase it's Microsoft that it gets its own page? People should be fairly familiar with the interview process. If it has to be deleted, then perhaps put a {{deletedpage}} on it? ^KILO-_LIMA 17:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, and if it's substantially the same as the last one, speedy delete. I'm not sure it is - of course I can't see the original, but one of the sentences was quoted in the AfD - I searched the article for part of it ('development manager') and found nothing, so it's probably not completely identical. Its only purpose is still basically as a how-to, which violates WP:NOT. --Malthusian (talk) 17:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There is next-to-nothing in the article that is different from a majority of 'prepare yourself for a job interview' articles that are published on a weekly basis. The Microsoft aspect doesn't make it notable.  (aeropagitica)  17:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article has improved since the last AfD. Even a merge is better than delete. I don't think we want to upset a relatively new user to Wikipedia by deleting one of his decent articles? --★Ukdragon37★^talk 18:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are numerous new users who's pages are delted. Some are even wrost than AfD, and in this case, I mean Speedy. This article seems to blatantly advertise Microsoft's interview, and Wikipedia is not a how-to. ^KILO-_LIMA 20:06, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Merge I think my article should at least be merged with the Microsoft entry. Microsoft was one of the first, if not the first company to develop this unique style of interviewing. Since other companies like Google and Yahoo also use this type of interview, it is becoming more commonplace, so I can see why people might want to merge my article with Microsoft. I did spend a good deal of time crafting the article and you can find that the content is factual and well-written. I only decided to write this page after reading the Microsoft entry and seeing that "Microsoft Interview" was not linked to a Wiki page. I think that those who are more familiar with the more traditional behavioral interviews will learn something about how technical interviews are conducted. -- Suvablee0506 18:21, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see what makes the interview process unusual, personally. The procedure and the questions all seem pretty standard. This may be because, if the article does have a purpose, it's hidden in all the stuff that frankly, doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia entry. We don't need to know, for example, Microsoft's current job postings, or that they pay for your accomodation, or their expense claims procedure (which is, btw, identical to every other expense claims procedure). Or rather, we would if we were applying for a job at Microsoft, but no-one who isn't could possibly find that information interesting; that means it's not suitable for an encyclopaedia. If it's a unique style of interviewing, then tell us about it and remove all the other stuff, because I honestly can't see it in this article. --Malthusian (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do see your point. Perhaps I can incorporate some of what I have written in "The Second Round Technical Interview" and and "Interview Questions" into the "Business culture" section of the Microsoft entry and delete the separate entry for "Microsoft Interview"? - Suvablee0506 18:45, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Me too. Perhaps merging would be better. But no large amount of detail should be added. It is only a process as to whether someone should ge a job at Microsoft, or not. ^KILO-_LIMA 18:50, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There is neither anything notable nor encyclopedic about this entry.Microsoft's interview process is not particularly different than the interview process for other similar companies. I think it borders on advertising, to be honest. Crunch 18:53, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Back in the 80s and 90s, the Microsoft interview procedure was influential and innovative. I don't diasagree that the article needs to be cleaned-up, though. The talk page suggests there was a far more interesting version previously available, but I don't see it in the history. Can it be resurrected? -- Mikeblas 19:05, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - The Microsoft interview process is definitely notable and drastically altered interviews across the whole field of computer science. Cyde Weys 2M-VOTE 21:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If that's true, then I think the article can be rewritten with that fact as its focus, and less detail on all the steps of the interview process, many of which are common to every job interview in every field, dating long before the 1980s. Crunch 00:32, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Smells like a copyvio or an official submission to me. e.g. It is expected that the candidate research Microsoft's various businesses and product groups, and come prepared to speak in-depth about his/her résumé in addition to asking thoughtful questions. --kingboyk 22:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was no intention of mine at all to create an entry that would cause controversy. I was just reading the Microsoft entry and found the wiki-link to "Microsoft Interview" with an unwritten article. I was totally unaware that it had been deleted before. I understand everyone's concern about the entry. Perhaps an addition to the Job interview entry could include a description of a technical interview using the Microsoft interview process as an example. Obviously, only parts of the current article would be used. I myself am leaning towards deleting the "Microsoft Interview" entry and merging parts of it with possibly Microsoft and Job interview because that type of interview is becoming more commonplace. I am however against deleting it outright before at least some of it is used somewhere because I did do genuine research and put forth an honest effort. Any thoughts? - Suvablee0506 23:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Don't worry too much about the controversy, honestly. We try to assume good faith and I'm sure there's a way we can use some of your material. Besides, the guidance presented to a user when (s)he clicks on a red link maybe isn't good enough. --kingboyk 23:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before the article was deleted, someone really should have checked 'what links here' and dewikilinked 'Microsoft interview'. --Malthusian (talk) 09:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a how to guide. --Bachrach44 02:56, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I would just like to say that contrary to what people are saying here, this article's subject in my opinion is quite notable. This interviewing process is drastically different from what the majority of other companies use. There should be somewhere on Wikipedia to document this. I agree that maintenance may be needed (clean up, removing potential adverts, merged etc.) but I do not believe this article should be deleted outright (as per my vote above). --★Ukdragon37★^talk 18:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencyclopedic, the pracice will surely change over years. As an anectode: I know about one guy who got hired by Microsoft (as a tester) w/o any interview at all (a student who finished university, not someone with big name). He was recommended by a friend (who even didn;'t worked in MS) and got in without being asked anything at all. So the article isn't even correctly describing reality. Pavel Vozenilek 22:05, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would everyone be okay with just using some part of the entry and merging it with Job interview to describe a technical interview using Microsoft as just one example? The Job interview entry has a section on behavioral interviews but not technical interviews. Again, I am not against deleting the entry but not before some of it is used somewhere.- Suvablee0506 17:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As has been noted above, the subject of the article is particularly noteworthy because of its originality and subsequent effect on many companies, especially in the 80's and 90's. However, the article itself is not spectacular. It should be condensed, refocused, and placed either on the Microsoft page or the Job interview page, the other with a note and a link. Rexmorgan 03:16, 21 January 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.