Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Course of action


 * 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 delete as unnecessary dicdef. - ulayiti (talk)  17:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Course of action

 * del, a bureaucratese definition for a self-descriptive phrase. mikka (t) 04:21, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete self-descriptive phrase as indicated by nominator -- Ruby  04:49, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. --Ter e nce Ong 05:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per all above. -- Kinu t /c  06:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Arbustoo 09:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * very strong keep: This is out of process. Since when do we delete an article because it is bureaucratese. I've never seen that in valid reasons for deletion. Perhaps you meant to say this needs verification. In that case we should follow proper procedur and put up the template of unsourced. This is a term that appears to be used just as much as PR, HR, etc... I would also like to point out that there are some on google "define:". By clicking here you will realize that according to google there are 2 definitions. Expand the article. --CyclePat 20:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete! I can't believe this isn't unanimous.  It's exactly the kind of thing that should be deleted.  It's a self-explanatory dicdef. BrianGCrawfordMA 21:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone have a military planning (MORS) or decision science background? I'd be happy to discuss why this article is important to those in these fields.  Those that have commented (above) must know a lot more than I do about the relevance of this information in these fields. Cask05 23:06, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
 * See edits to article. Cask05 14:25, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

comment: I might not be able to prove that this article should be kept but I sure may be able to prove why it shouldn't be deleted. This article is sourced. This article respects No Original research policy. This article is a true article not a hoax. This article is suitable of wikipedia. This article passes the test of WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC,WP:FICT because it doesn't fall within those categories. This article doesn't seem to be a copyvio. This is not a category gone awry. This is not a redundant stub or template gone awry. This can definatelly be more than a dictionnary article. (ie.: the addition of various historic military examples, other examples, etc, digrams, images. etc...), this article is not a source text either. Conclusion: This article doesn't need deletion... as per WP:DP it needs or perhaps, because there are already some excellent references and sources, simply some  and  to expand it! I think the nominator should be slaped for failling to notice that there are two collumns in WP:DP. One is delete nomination the other is "Problems that don't require deletion." Hastily jumping into such deletion process has not saved anyone here, any time. Summary:page doesn't seem to violate any deletion policy rules. This article should be kept (as per my above vote). --CyclePat 02:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
 * comment: b.t.w. google only give http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=%22Course+of+action%22&meta= 10'100'000 hits for the term "course of action." --CyclePat 02:53, 22 February 2006 (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.