Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Customer Asset Lifecycle 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 of the debate was delete. Mailer Diablo 04:12, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Customer Asset Lifecycle Management

Well, here's a page that looks copy & pasted straight out of an advertising pamphlet, or slides from somebody's motivational business speech. This page was prodded, then the prod was removed, so now it's going to AfD. Isopropyl 01:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete as WP:VSCA (or some combination therein). Does not seem to be an encyclopedic topic regardless. --Kinu ^t/_c
  • Addendum: DO NOT keep and rename as suggested below, as the contents of the existing article have little if anything to provide in the way of an encyclopedic topic on Asset Lifecycle Management. --Kinu ^t/_c 21:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per Kinu. Apears to be a whole bunch of business babble for the sole purpose of directing people to the company's website. Fan1967 02:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nomination. — Adrian Lamo ·· 02:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Rename to Asset Lifecycle Management per Mr. Smith & cleanup. LOTS of cleanup. — Adrian Lamo ·· 12:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, reads as a consultant's pitch at the moment and directs to a single "firm". Not sure how this could be cleaned up and not come out as original research. Kuru ^talk 02:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, Thanks all for the input, I will reword and rework the information on this topic so it aligns better with Wikipedia policies, thanks Disaas 03:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete Self Promotion MiracleMat 05:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep & rename to Asset Lifecycle Management. That concept gets 60k ghits[1], so the idea is at least notable in the business circle. (the artical as named only gets about 9 hits.) ---J.Smith 07:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator. JIP | Talk 07:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. --Terence Ong 10:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and create an article on Asset Lifecycle Management which does appear to be notable unlike CALM. The current article is pure promotional material and not encyclopedic MLA 14:42, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete per nom. There might be a case for writing an NPOV article on customer lifecycle management or asset lifecycle mananegement, but this ain't it. --Martinp 16:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete - wordy, repetitious, advertising; vague prose puffing up the obvious. To call it "original research" would imply originality or research. Smerdis of Tlön 16:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Good points. It's a buzzword bingo bonanza. It still reads like an essay (i.e. original research). Not encyclopedic. Fan1967 18:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

• Delet. Vanispamcruftisement. -- Krash (Talk) 15:27, 28 February 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.