Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obsolescence Management


 * 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 TO DELETE - DEFAULT KEEP. There are a number of keep and a number of merge arguments made, but there is no consensus to delete here. Hiding Talk 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Obsolescence Management
Stupid --Macarion 04:06, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: This nomination does not list a specific justification under Deletion policy for deleting the article. Nominator: please specify what specific deletable policy issues you are justifying the nomination with.  Georgewilliamherbert 10:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Keep, valid SCM/business topic. Could obviously use expansion, but it's marked as a stub.  Kuru  talk
 * Keep It's another word for AfD. (Actually per Kuru). ~ trialsanderrors 04:30, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Amend Keep if someone wakes it from its stubby slumber before this AfD is over, Redirect otherwise. ~ trialsanderrors 18:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * So should there be an article called "Marital Adjustment" where it just says "A marital adjustment is an adjustment for marriage"? that's basically what this is --Macarion 04:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sure some military buffs can flesh it out. There's a whole bunch of articles on it, mostly military equipment related:
 * PR Newswire US February 14, 2006, "Air Force Awards MTC $7.3 Million Contract for Obsolescence Management" ~ trialsanderrors 04:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you want to hear. You can do a google search and find thousands of articles and books on the exact topic.  Any of them could be used to expand the article past its stub state.  Are you looking for cites?  I'm not sure what your basis is for nominating this - are you saying it's not a notable topic, or that articles should only be in a stub state for a certain period? I'm afraid you have not given me enough to go on here.   Kuru  talk  05:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Two words put together isnt the subject of an article. obsolescence management is the management of obsolescence. of course. i guess i am outnumber on this though --Macarion 06:34, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Merge with Obsolescence, if it must be kept (I agree with you Macarion; as an article, it's horrifyingly inane). This article has been around for a year without substantial improvement, and it's beginning to smell. --die Baumfabrik 06:42, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge per Baymfrabrik and as unclear nom Alphachimp   talk  13:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment: I accidentally typed delete. I meant merge sorry. Alphachimp   talk  13:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Merge with Obsolescence -- Alias Flood 17:06, 8 July 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.