Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Regulatory asset 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 Delete... and doubly so since it looks like a copyvio. ---J.S (T/C) 20:47, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Regulatory asset management

 * — (View AfD)

Unsourced original research. Appears to be a non-notable buzzword phrase to boot, with 314 non-wiki ghits. Contested prod. MER-C 03:05, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Appears to be a copy of a white paper from a vendor and is unsourced. I think Calibration covers the subject well enough. Phaedrus86 05:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete, seems to be a vendor created neologism/buzzword. As Pahedrus86 mentioned, it would also appear to be a copyvio cut&paste from a single vendor whitepaper. Completely unreferenced/uncited original research at that. Note that the actual unique google hits are around 64, with many (if not most) being coincidental arrangement of those words.  Kuru  talk  18:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete as an uncourced neologism and likely original research.-- danntm T C 20:29, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per above. --Wildnox(talk) 21:53, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete. Inadequately referenced, and the strong smell of original research. WMMartin 15:25, 2 January 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.