Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maintenance audit
- 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 and 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)
- Delete Content fork of auditCurb Chain (talk) 15:48, 9 August 2011 (UTC)