Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Computer maintenance


 * 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   no consensus. This isn't much of an article at the moment; however, it does have the potential to be one, so I would suggest that the best course of action at the moment is to give it a chance. No projudice to re-AfDing it if no improvement is seen in a reasonable time. Black Kite 11:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Computer maintenance

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

This is nothing more than a how-to guide for computer maintenance, and, as such, a violation of WP:NOTHOWTO. I prodded the article, but the prod was contested by an editor who added a Google books reference on the subject of computer maintenance and a couple of external links. This does not address the basic issue that this is nothing more than a numbered list of steps to take for computer maintenance. I have a Google books link for chainsaw use and maintenance, but this would not come close to being an adequate reference for a how-to article on chainsaw maintenance. -  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive' 00:57, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Possibly an encyclopedic topic, but the present article doesn't offer any content on which a suitable article could be based.  ReverendWayne (talk) 04:54, 20 September 2009 (UTC)    Article still needs work, but I'm striking my delete !vote based on improvements.  ReverendWayne (talk) 18:54, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep How to is a matter of style and is rarely a good reason to delete as it may be addressed by ordinary content editing. It seems quite incredible that we do not already have an article about this notable topic and we have to start somewhere.  It is our clear editing policy to improve such weak starts rather than to delete them: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome."  See also Chainsaw. Colonel Warden (talk) 08:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I fail to see how your example of Chainsaw is relevant, except that it seems to indicate that "maintenance" could be a subsection of another article. Perhaps Personal computer hardware would be a good place for it.  As it stands, there is not enough content for an independent article. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  13:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The case of chainsaw maintenance shows that we already cover such topics. Computer maintenance is a far larger topic but, if we chose to cover it as part of the computer article then we would WP:MERGE the current article not delete it.  Please see our deletion policy in which it is explained that alternatives to deletion should be considered first as deletion si only for hopeless cases. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not a far larger topic. The article has barely any content at all, and can easily be a section of an article on computer hardware.  Stop trying to make this more complex than it is.  It is a how-to article, which is strictly forbidden and deletable under WP:NOTHOWTO.  I suggest you read that policy. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Not even close to an encyclopedia article, an entry for a Wikibook at best. Hypothetically one could write an article about computer maintenance or lawn care, but it would be from a completely different angle - this one should be smothered now. --Wtshymanski (talk) 14:09, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * See Lawn care. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That is weak. There is no article on lawn care, the link you provided redirects to lawn, in which article there is a section on care and maintenance, making exactly the same point I made above in regard to chainsaw maintenance. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  19:21, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The point is that we do have an entry for lawn care which leads to an article which covers this topic. It seems absurd to suggest that we may not have a similar entry for computer maintenance - an activity which employs many millions of technicians and users. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you being intentionally obtuse? There is no entry for lawn care, there is a redirect, which is what computer maintenance will be after it is deleted. ---  RepublicanJacobite  The'FortyFive'  20:36, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Lawn care is a blue link - a functional reference. If Computer maintenance is deleted, as the nomination suggests, then it would become a red link and so have the effect of leaving our readership at a loss.  The current article could be turned into a redirect without deletion and this is one of the suggested alternatives to deletion listed at WP:BEFORE.  This is elementary deletion policy - that it is not necessary to delete an article in order to alter it. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Weak delete. The concept itself is very notable, but the current article is a how-to guide. J I P  | Talk 17:52, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As you agree that the topic is notable, please explain how deletion will assist us in covering it. Who is going to write on a topic when they see that their first draft may be so casually deleted? Colonel Warden (talk) 18:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Colonel Warden is quite correct. This article was created on Sept 16, and the user was not given any opportunity to improve it. It should have just been tagged as HowTo and left alone for a while. Abductive  (reasoning) 20:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed. The article was tagged for deletion within 3 minutes of its creation and the editor has not contributed since.  Colonel Warden (talk) 20:30, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Vote withdrawn based on the above comments. J I P  | Talk 05:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Transwiki to WikiBooks. 76.66.196.139 (talk) 03:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * KEEP Style and source issues have been addressed. Several editors agree that the topic is worthy of inclusion. --Firefly322 (talk) 23:53, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - even with the recent changes, I am less than thrilled with the challenging and authoritative treatment of the subject here. But yes, let's have more articles that are collections of the blindingly trite. --Wtshymanski (talk) 20:35, 23 September 2009 (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.