Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disruptive Power of Repair Management Method DPRMM

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. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive Power of Repair Management Method DPRMM[edit]

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

Non-notable topic. Google search does not yield any meaningful results. Article created by a COI editor. Very poorly written, unencyclopedic. J. M. (talk) 15:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. samee converse 20:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the essay. samee converse 20:35, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DO not delete the essay, 1) I am not COI, and take offence that you slur me with this definition. 2) DPRMM is a new subject area that is being used in 1,000's of companies globally and just like anything new has emerged and is now surfacing. Would you delete Kaizen or Kanban on the first week it was introduced? Just because a subject is new does not mean it is not meaningful. I believe that the editors that want to delete the subject have no actual background in reliability engineering. the article is not related to any company, it is a product of research and was tested in three global sites. The subject is a proven method of reliability management, it has a sound mathematical model base and relies on a lot of academically proven sources. If the reason for deletion is that it is written in a style that some find hard to read, then we can edit it. If the article does not elicit thousands of Google pages, then give it time, all new models have to start somewhere. Kanban, Kaizen, etc... al started out, imagine if we would deny Kanban if it were only published today. I respectfully ask you cancel the deletion, and allow this article to remain . If you think the same thing in one month, and if the article has not got enough google referencing by then, I will not contest your request.Gina Kano (talk) 22:44, 11 April 2018 (UTC).Gina Kano (talk) 22:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, yes, you are a COI editor, as you have been spamming Wikipedia with promotional articles and advertisements. Second, when you say that this topic is new and not covered anywhere, you admit that the topic is not notable and the article should be deleted.—J. M. (talk) 22:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gina Kano: If a topic is 'new and not covered anywhere', it'd constitute original research. samee converse 23:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First: I did not spam Wikipedia I was testing out my sandbox page for the first time and did not know the rules of publishing. I accepted the deletion and even commended the editor that deleted it since the actual page was not meant to be added. The second page was deleted since it was a copy of the first and I had not yet fully grasped the way Wikipedia was used. So, in terms of "spamming" incorrect and a lie, since I only had my one and first article published and deleted, and rightly so. Regarding COI, the editor that psoted this accepted that I had no COI, and as such that is the end of the issue. Please explain COI in relations to a method of reliability engineering? This is not company or a product, this is a research method used in industry. You might as well state that the publisher of Six Sigma is also COI. Second this subject is notable, the very fact that YOU decided it is not notable is not sufficient, are you a reliability engineer? An operations research scientist? Just because you are ignorant of the subject area does not make it irrelevant to Wikipedia. Gina Kano (talk) 23:11, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor did not accept anything like that. That's just wishful thinking. Anyway, let's stop this discussion, as it's off-topic here.—J. M. (talk) 23:34, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not least based on uploader's own admission that it is WP:TOOSOON, but also because if this topic becomes notable this wall of text would be of little use in constructing an article. We should be sure to catch all the links to this article added and delete those too. Pinkbeast (talk) 00:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:46, 12 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 03:46, 12 April 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.