Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facility condition assessment


 * 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. North America1000 03:00, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Facility condition assessment

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Outwith my area of expertise, but I couldn't establish its notability. Has beent agged for notability for 7 years; hopefully its notability will be resolved now. Pinging who tagged this for notability. Boleyn (talk) 17:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
 * Delete per WP:TNT - currently this is not much more than an essay on management. There are no inline citations. Bearian (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:34, 21 April 2015 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep A clearly notable topic, a quick Google search shows that references are easy to come by, and as with all deletion discussion, we do not delete articles because references haven't been added yet, only if they don't exist. Completely disagree with this being a situation for WP:TNT, adding a few inline citations wouldn't be that difficult and I can see no need to completely start over on this clearly notable topic. This article just needs a little TLC, and obviously just isn't a big target for content editors, hence the reason for the 7-year long tag. I'll see if I can clean it up a bit. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I have added a few inline citations and references to better establish notability. -War wizard90 (talk) 01:43, 29 April 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep There are reliable sources out there, both governmental and corporate; here is one from the Department of Health and Human Services arm of the US government that gives scope, purpose, practices, etc. Thanks go to War wizard90 who added a few of these sources. The subject looks notable to me. The article could use improvement and better referencing, but seems like a reasonable start-class summary of the topic. --Mark viking (talk) 03:15, 29 April 2015 (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.