Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scheduled downtime

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 merge to Downtime#Planning. Sandstein 20:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scheduled downtime[edit]

Wikipedia is not a dictionary. KurtRaschke (talk) 06:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Keep I think the topic has some potential to give information about scheduled downtimes, more than just defining the expression. Steve Dufour (talk) 06:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge anything useful to Downtime#Planning -Atmoz (talk) 06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect anything useful to Downtime#Planning. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:52, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and Redirect - Do what Atmoz said, as this is a dicdef and it's redundant _David ^WS _(contribs) 20:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hold your horses - I googled "planned downtime" and got 78,100 hits while "scheduled downtime" rec. 278,000. This subject might go into the downtime article, I confess, but that article seems much more generic. This article I hope eventually has more to do with Reliability engineering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sirgorpster (talk • contribs) 05:54, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
strong keep. The article's citations and the ghits found by Sirgorpster establish notability. Just looking at the title I could not understand why this article appears at AfD. The article has huge potential for development, e.g.: how to decide whether planned maintenance is more efficient than waiting for things to fail (among other things this is a big topic in the maintenance of roads and associated items such as lighting); in computers, hardware and software developments aimed at 24-7 operation; strategic effects of planned refits on major military units such as aircraft carriers or nuclear subs. Links to Downtime#Planning would be useful, but a merge would be premature. --Philcha (talk) 13:36, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - topic is important and belongs to both maintenance and downtime, but in current state content is too weak and doesn't warrant an article. Philcha is correct in saying that if the article would get more developed and expanded from the current stub it would be standing on its own and not only be a part of another topic. MaxVT (talk) 15:06, 23 November 2008 (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.