Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Maintenance-free operating period

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. Overwhelming Keep Consensus. Work needs to be done on the article but it passes the GNG according to the discussion. (non-admin closure) AmericanAir88^(talk) 11:10, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance-free operating period

[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)

Fails WP:V due to being unsourced for almost a decade now. Could be a case of WP:G11, but unclear. Kirbanzo (talk) 18:01, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination provides no reason to delete. If a source is wanted then this is done by adding one per WP:IMPERFECT and WP:SOFIXIT, not by deleting anything. And note that WP:V only requires sources for controversial facts. What is controversial here? It's easy work to find an example such as this. Andrew D. (talk) 20:14, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are plenty of book and Google Scholar sources with which to source and expand this stub. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:19, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No longer unsourced. The coverage is good enough to call the topic notable. XOR'easter (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY and lots of sources out there. XOR'easter added a couple of sources to make this short stub well-referenced. A WP:BEFORE style search quickly yields many GScholar and GBooks sources discussing the concept. Hence keep. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep, per above. /Julle (talk) 10:24, 25 October 2018 (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.