Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Full operating capability

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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Full operating capability

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DoD acronym. Wikipedia is not a manual. Fails WP:NOT.

~~Addendum:86% copyvio.~~ scope_creep^Talk 23:21, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:22, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is actually a key issue for military programs across the western world, and there's a large literature on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Operational definition, in a new section Operational definition#Military (while sticking to non-copyvio sources). There is no need to create new articles for every term if the articles are stubs. They can always be split out later. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:08, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Comment: Initial operating capability ought to be considered alongside this article for any changes required to it. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:26, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the point is kind of moot since the AfD can be closed now, but we speedy delete copyvios, and all rights reserved is pretty clear cut as being not a Wikipedia-compatible licence. The content can't be merged, except for half a sentence about how it's "usually preceded by an IOC phase". Most we can do is delete and redirect. Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alpha3031: Yip. Indeed. I never checked for copyvio until I posted it, as I would have speedied it myself. There seems to some use for the term, so I guess a full article will arrive at some point, if somebody wants to do it. I will need to be deleted outright, or the history will need to be RD1'd. A new article would be ideal. scope_creep^Talk 07:53, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The copying was in the opposite direction, as is clear from the full entry at the copying website. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be striking then. My initial instinct was to merge if there was no copyvio but I'm leaning more towards a keep now. Scope creep, since you've seem to have been convinced the topic is notable as well, do you want to withdraw the nom and SK1 things or leave things open? Alpha3031 (t • c) 13:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:38, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yip, it look like it. scope_creep^Talk 09:16, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It is likely looking to be a keep certainly, but I'm not particularly sure of withdrawing it, more so, as more than 50%, is the definition. In the 14th edition, which it was taken out of, there is more than 2000 definitions. Are they all going to come in, in some way? I would rather have a full sized articles, written by somebody doing decent research to try to make the reader understand what it means, rather than a definition from a glossary of terms manual. The whole point of WP:NOT, is exactly this; so the work is done. It's another dud article with military content that nobody understands. I think it should go. And even by the time a new article is in, it won't even called that as historical research will give it another. That is modern name. You will have 500-1000 years of military preparations and it will be an entirely different beast. scope_creep^Talk 14:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into project commissioning per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:21, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is project commissioning, that describes civil engineering practices. It is a military term and it deserves a military style article.scope_creep^Talk 17:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Large projects of any sort will typically have a formal completion and signoff stage. It's standard project management and procurement and it doesn't make much difference whether it's a weapon system, a railroad, an IT system or whatever. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:58, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.