Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automobile maintenance and repair

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. W.marsh 13:53, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automobile maintenance and repair

Automobile maintenance and repair (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log) Wikipedia is not a how to manual Madmedea 17:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following related pages for the same reason:

Engine Maintenance (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Car engine oil level (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

Added per suggestion below. Madmedea 20:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete. It's good to know this information, but Wikipedia ain't the place for it. This is why I wish "how-to" pages were a valid reason for speedy deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 17:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's no need for that. We aren't snowed under by "how-to" pages. We are snowed under by the usual bad article ideas: people writing about themselves, their bands, their websites, and their companies. Uncle G 17:52, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

• My bad. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:20, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

• Before anyone says it, Wikibooks already has a better Automobile Repair textbook. Also note the existence of Engine Maintenance and Car engine oil level created by the same editor. Uncle G 18:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Delete Pep Boys called, they want their manual back. This is a textbook case of Wikipedia is not a manual --Cyrus Andiron 19:09, 18 May 2007 (UTC).
• Delete per above reasons. Someguy1221 20:34, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
• Leave it alone! This is the kind of useful subject matter people really care about and is far more valuable than much of the frivolous, fatuous, trivial and esoteric material that abounds. Besides, this particular article looks well thought out and organized and well-written. How sad that its fate is being put up to a vote, if that's what this comment section is all about. Hertz1888 23:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It may be useful, but Wikipedia is not a how-to guide, as stated at least twice above. I don't care how well written it is. Note also the Wikibooks link above -- a much better link as stated by Uncle G. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 00:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Reply to Hertz1888 - WP:USEFUL is never a valid reason to keep an article, and this is not a vote, it is a debate attempting to reach consensus.Madmedea 10:26, 19 May 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.