Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Monitoring


 * 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 NO CONSENSUS. I am unimpressed by the keepers. Thelb4 cites the expansion of the BBC one article: over the course 2.5 years! Yuckfoo manages to find the word "Monitoring" on Google and applies zero analysis to that finding rendering it meaningless (as Gazpacho points out, "please", whilst polite, isn't a useful addition to the debate). However, I don't think this debate can be read as producing a consensus to delete. In my capacity as editor-in-ordinary, I am going to mark this as a move to Wikt. -Splash talk 00:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Monitoring
This is a meaningless stub not an article SqueakBox 17:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep and rewrite to make it more understandable. Just because it's a stub doesn't mean it won't eventually become a respectable article (e.g. BBC One is quite long, but it started as this!). Thelb 4  17:37, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

'''This AfD debate is being relisted in order to prompt a more thorough consensus. Please place new discussion below this line.''' → Ξxtreme Unction {yak ł blah } 14:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Move this to Wiktionary, if it's not already there. Monitor can have an Wikipedia use, but the verb form of this doesn't really seem to be able to get much farther than a dictionary definition, and I know those get deleted. Mo0 [ talk ] 20:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
 * keep or maybe merge but please do not delete this Yuckfoo 01:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Saying "please" isn't enough. Why shouldn't this be deleted?. Gazpacho
 * sorry google has 293,000,000 hits for this so it should not be deleted  Yuckfoo 04:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete under speedy delete criteria. It's short and worded so vaguely as to omit the context. What "data"? What "development"? What "objectives"? Gazpacho 03:25, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * This appears to be brochure material related to Effective Development Group, in which case it would be advertising. Gazpacho 05:04, 12 December 2005 (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.