Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OMAC (Industry Organization)


 * 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. Black Kite (t)  00:29, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

OMAC (Industry Organization)

 * – ( View AfD View log )

Only reference is non-independent. If they are the "global" organization as they claim, they'd have better sources. -Vaarsivius ("You've made a glorious contribution to science.") 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Dear Vaarsivius, why don't you propose that the article is improved rather than suggesting that it is removed? I am working on entering other references. --CaliViking (talk) 21:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this JFHJr, I appreciate that you are working hard to make Wikipedia a reliable reference site. Please be aware that this is an industry organization that is very well known among people who work with industrial automation systems. If you click here Google search for "Organization for Machine Automation and Control" you will see that the organization is referenced more than 12,000 times. I realize that it may seem to be a very narrow subject if you are not working in the field of industrial automation, but for people like me who are actively working in this field it is very important. Please also be aware that I am not affiliated in any way with the organization, I have no personal gain from creating their wiki page. Please also see the PackML page that is closely related to OMAC. If you want to do further research, then please call the editor of any of the industry magazines that dominate this space such as Automation World, InTech, Packaging Automation, Food Processing. You may also call any of the major automation suppliers such as Siemens Automation, Rockwell Automation, Invensys/Wonderware (the company that I am working for), ABB, GE Automation, Schneider and ask for the person responsible for industrial software product management, they will all confirm the importance of this organization. Another option to confirm the importance of the organization is to contact ISA - International Society of Automation, which I believe is the largest organization in this space. OMAC is also well known in the academic world. I know that we are all supposed to look into research, and I look forward to seeing this article being expanded in content. CaliViking (talk) 19:10, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete – After several tries, I wasn't able to find significant coverage from reliable sources on this subject. A few singular and passing mentions in a small number of reports and an even smaller number of print publications. And CaliViking: if this organization is at all notable, someone here will find it in a reliable source that does something more than mention it in passing. We're all supposed to look into research. JFHJr (㊟) 01:44, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read WP:GNG which is the primary guideline for inclusion in wikipedia or WP:ORG. As it stands, the article doesn't meet either criteria. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:18, 16 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep as meeting the general notability guideline. See the sources added as well as the many more available .  Note that for most of its lifetime (1994-2008), OMAC operated under the name Open Modular Architecture Controls, rather than Organization for Machine Automation and Control.    A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 15:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Merge to PackML, which is what all the references seem to be about. Stuartyeates (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
 * What of this book (pages 300-304) and the majority of these news archive results?   A rbitrarily 0    ( talk ) 20:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep. refs look independent enough to me. --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2011 (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.