Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Opm3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was DELETE. — JIP | Talk 08:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opm3

Advertisement, partial copyvio too. I already edited part of it, but after re-reading it I don't think it's encyclopedic. JoanneB 11:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

September 30th was an exceptionally busy AfD day. So this debate among several got almost no attention. Relisting in hope of some tender, loving debate this time around. -Splashtalk 00:00, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Weak keep. Corporate jibberish tends to make my head hurt, but a quick Google search seems to indicate that this has widespread acknowledgment/use. Needs a complete rewrite, however. And I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. Justin Bacon 00:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete jibberish is an appropriate term. --Rogerd 01:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per justin bacon Anetode 02:48, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete - goes around in circles without actually saying anything encyclopedic. Brisvegas 04:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Reads like an ad. Qaz (talk) 07:55, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete: although project management is important in business, and there are alot of websites about opm3, I'm not sure how widespread it really is and if enough to make it encyclopedic - hundreds of customers is probably not sufficient (I think). After all, WIkipedia is not a directory (WP:NOT). Karol 08:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Per WP:NOT. Banes 09:25, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, marketing talk. Nothing worth keeping. If the company is indeed worthy of an article, I don't oppose an encyclopedic rewrite. - Mgm|(talk) 20:25, 8 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.