- 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. Secret account 16:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Extending product life cycles
- Extending product life cycles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopedic, essay-like, only one source. Seems like a WP:HOWTO. untouched since 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Any decent content should be in product lifecycle management. Steven Walling • talk 09:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- But it isn't and that article links to this one. All that deletion would do is to create a red link. How is that helping? Warden ( talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- @ Colonel Warden: There shouldn't be a red link. There should be a paragraph or two about extending product lifecycles in the main article. I would have proposed a merge, but this article is far too unencyclopedic to convert any significant part of it. Steven Walling • talk 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Notable topic being covered in sources such as Advanced Business. Just needs development per our editing policy. Warden ( talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- @ Colonel Warden: Development with what? The single source? I wasn't aware that only one source is all it took. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- delete Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. Mangoe ( talk) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (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.
- 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. Secret account 16:14, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Extending product life cycles
- Extending product life cycles ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopedic, essay-like, only one source. Seems like a WP:HOWTO. untouched since 2006. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 06:11, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Delete Any decent content should be in product lifecycle management. Steven Walling • talk 09:10, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- But it isn't and that article links to this one. All that deletion would do is to create a red link. How is that helping? Warden ( talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- @ Colonel Warden: There shouldn't be a red link. There should be a paragraph or two about extending product lifecycles in the main article. I would have proposed a merge, but this article is far too unencyclopedic to convert any significant part of it. Steven Walling • talk 19:07, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Keep Notable topic being covered in sources such as Advanced Business. Just needs development per our editing policy. Warden ( talk) 13:52, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- @ Colonel Warden: Development with what? The single source? I wasn't aware that only one source is all it took. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 22:12, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000 (talk) 16:39, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k ( talk) 16:40, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
-
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:27, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
- delete Wikipedia is not a "how-to" manual. Mangoe ( talk) 15:05, 18 November 2013 (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.