Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Background to O&M Manual

: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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

=[[Background to O&M Manual]]=

:{{la|Background to O&M Manual}} – (View AfDView log){{•}} {{plainlink|1=http://toolserver.org/~betacommand/reports/afd/{{urlencode:Background to O&M Manual}}.html|2=Afd statistics}}

:({{Find sources|Background to O&M Manual}})

This seems like it belongs on an intranet somewhere, not on Wikipedia. Written like an essay and uses weasel words and seems to be filled with WP:OR. Not an encyclopedic entry. — Timneu22 · talk 12:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Delete Spam under a thin veneer of article, links are to a company that writes O&M manuals. Poor context. There might be a legitimate Operations and maintenance manual article (maybe), but this isn't it. Acroterion (talk) 12:53, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions.
  • Delete. An essay of coatrack spam meant to sell consulting services, "referenced" to the website of a firm who will happily draft the manuals alleged to be required by UK law for a price. I agree that the manuals themselves might support an article, but this text is not helping. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:49, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete likely stealth advertisment. No objection to possible partial merge somehwere without the links, but I'll leave that to experts. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Delete, as above. I doubt that a partial merge would work; I can't think of a single sentence that I'd actually keep after comparing to whatever reliable sources might be unearthed, it'd be a rewrite. bobrayner (talk) 12:53, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

: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.