Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maintenance audit: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
[[WP:NOTESSAY|Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought]]. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em" class="texhtml">[[User:Σ|<font color="#BA0000">Σ</font>]] <sup><sub>[[User talk:Σ|<font color="#036">talk</font>]]</sub></sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex">[[Special:Contributions/Σ|<font color="#036">contribs</font>]]</sub></small></span> 06:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
[[WP:NOTESSAY|Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought]]. --<span style="text-shadow:gray 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em" class="texhtml">[[User:Σ|<font color="#BA0000">Σ</font>]] <sup><sub>[[User talk:Σ|<font color="#036">talk</font>]]</sub></sup><small><sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex">[[Special:Contributions/Σ|<font color="#036">contribs</font>]]</sub></small></span> 06:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Keep.''' Article is in fact original thought and needs to be restarted with references such as [http://www.smpltd.co.uk/consultancy/maintenance-audits.htm] [http://www.rushtonintl.com/auditing.html]. —''[[User:Yk Yk Yk|Yk <font color="#DC143C">Yk Yk</font>]]'' <small>'''[[User talk:Yk Yk Yk|talk]] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Yk Yk Yk|contrib]]'''</small> 07:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep.''' Article is in fact original thought and needs to be restarted with references such as [http://www.smpltd.co.uk/consultancy/maintenance-audits.htm] [http://www.rushtonintl.com/auditing.html]. —''[[User:Yk Yk Yk|Yk <font color="#DC143C">Yk Yk</font>]]'' <small>'''[[User talk:Yk Yk Yk|talk]] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Yk Yk Yk|contrib]]'''</small> 07:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small> —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) |
:<small class="delsort-notice">Note: This debate has been included in the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Business|list of Business-related deletion discussions]]. <!--Template:Deletion sorting--></small> <small> —[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] ([[User talk:Tom Morris|talk]]) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)</small> |
||
08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|||
:*'''Comment''' Just curious have you said what you meant here as your response? You wish to keep the article yet you think it is original research?--[[User:Warrior777|User:Warrior777]] ([[User talk:Warrior777|talk]]) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
:*'''Comment''' Just curious have you said what you meant here as your response? You wish to keep the article yet you think it is original research?--[[User:Warrior777|User:Warrior777]] ([[User talk:Warrior777|talk]]) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::I said the article at present is OR but needs to be rewritten, not deleted. —''[[User:Yk Yk Yk|Yk <font color="#DC143C">Yk Yk</font>]]'' <small>'''[[User talk:Yk Yk Yk|talk]] ~ [[Special:Contributions/Yk Yk Yk|contrib]]'''</small> 15:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Keep''' This subject is in fact notable ([[WP:GNG]]) and the article clearly defines many parameters of the subject. The article does however need sourcing ([[WP:VERIFY]]) and expansion for length and content. This article does have potential ([[WP:POTENTIAL]]).--[[User:Warrior777|User:Warrior777]] ([[User talk:Warrior777|talk]]) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' This subject is in fact notable ([[WP:GNG]]) and the article clearly defines many parameters of the subject. The article does however need sourcing ([[WP:VERIFY]]) and expansion for length and content. This article does have potential ([[WP:POTENTIAL]]).--[[User:Warrior777|User:Warrior777]] ([[User talk:Warrior777|talk]]) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
*'''Delete''': Pure OR. Even if the subject turns out to be notable, it won't ever be notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Whatever can be found can be merged into [[preventive maintenance]] or similar articles. After all, the best one could hope for is a well sourced definition. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
*'''Delete''': Pure OR. Even if the subject turns out to be notable, it won't ever be notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Whatever can be found can be merged into [[preventive maintenance]] or similar articles. After all, the best one could hope for is a well sourced definition. [[User:Dominus Vobisdu|Dominus Vobisdu]] ([[User talk:Dominus Vobisdu|talk]]) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC) |
||
Revision as of 15:35, 9 August 2011
- Maintenance audit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. --Σ talkcontribs 06:41, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep. Article is in fact original thought and needs to be restarted with references such as [1] [2]. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 07:39, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 08:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Comment Just curious have you said what you meant here as your response? You wish to keep the article yet you think it is original research?--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- I said the article at present is OR but needs to be rewritten, not deleted. —Yk Yk Yk talk ~ contrib 15:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Keep This subject is in fact notable (WP:GNG) and the article clearly defines many parameters of the subject. The article does however need sourcing (WP:VERIFY) and expansion for length and content. This article does have potential (WP:POTENTIAL).--User:Warrior777 (talk) 10:10, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
- Delete: Pure OR. Even if the subject turns out to be notable, it won't ever be notable enough to warrant a stand-alone article. Whatever can be found can be merged into preventive maintenance or similar articles. After all, the best one could hope for is a well sourced definition. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 12:00, 9 August 2011 (UTC)