Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PM Optimization


 * 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 Delete -- JForget 23:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

PM Optimization

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Appears to lack notability. - Jehochman Talk 03:45, 29 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete: I find nothing that would indicate notability. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:17, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete I see no grounds for passing WP:N & much of the article reads like advertising copy. Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:42, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as thinly disguised advertising for http://www.pmoptimisation.com.au Anytime you see someone marking the title of the main subject of an article as trademarked the COI alarm bells should go off. Jehochman, I know you were trying to assume good faith by undeleting it in response to the creators complaint but you should have just kept it deleted as your first hunch was the right one. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup - the term yields just under 1000 ghits, many of whom don't seem to be linked to the mentioned company. "PMO2000" appears to be a trademarked implementation of the method, and the advertisement for it should be cut down considerably. However, from what little I could gather, PMO is more than that and while a fringe topic not entirely unknown. --.Tom. (talk) 09:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep and cleanup -- yeah, what .Tom. said. That's the impression I got before, but didn't have the refs to back it up. On my Google searches, I found references to it in Navy and Air Force manuals.--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 14:29, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete, looks like marketing buzzword gunk to me. Lankiveil (talk) 11:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Delete, vehemently. Purportedly about a methodology which focuses on improving maintenance effectiveness and efficiency by review or rationalization of an existing maintenance program (formal or informal) and in most cases adding maintenance tasks to account for failure modes not addressed by the existing program.  A blizzard of words that boils down to finding new ways to remind yourself to clean the litter box.  People who have something important to say do not write like this. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Looks like someone trying to make their particular marketing buzzword legit via wikipedia. Pharmboy (talk) 15:36, 29 November 2007 (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.