Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Accurizing

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 keep, remove suspected OR. — CharlotteWebb 07:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accurizing

Article appears to be Original Research and a how-to. Wibbble 05:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. As it stands, the article could use some looking over to ensure encyclopedic tone and make sure there aren't any "how-to" sections. However, the topic is encyclopedic, and a Google search turns up a number of potential sources to address the OR concerns. Dave6 07:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep, could be improved but contains information worthy of an encyclopedia.--HisSpaceResearch 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - It's not OR, these techniques are widely discussed in the firearms industry. Georgewilliamherbert 00:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
  • And the how-to element? Wibbble 04:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
    • Absolutely not a justification for removal, per the AFD instructions. Should be tagged for cleanup etc. Georgewilliamherbert 02:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep It's not OR, there's a whole bunch of reference links at the bottom that descrtibe various accurizing techniques and processes. Concerning the "how to" issue, why don't we discuss what does or doesn't constitute "how to" content at Talk:Accurizing? Certainly I didn't intend it to be a how-to article, that would be far, far larger... scot 02:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep This and Rock climbing nominated for deletion on the same day? Where does it show that OR means the topic should be deleted from Wikipedia? WP:CLEAN AM I missing something? Next we'll be nominating George W. Bush for deletion because it gets hit by POV vandals. IS this really a criterion for deletion of an article, that it contains OR? KP Botany 16:17, 9 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.