Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Honda ecu codes

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 --JForget 01:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honda ecu codes

Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. This kind of information belongs in a lot of places, but Wikipedia is just not one of them. Blanchardb-Me^MyEars_MyMouth-timed 03:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not encyclopedic despite being WP:USEFUL. JJL (talk) 03:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wow, nom makes a pretty airtight argument if you ask me. -Verdatum (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Car manuals might be useful, but not here. SkierRMH (talk) 05:36, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Verdatum. LonelyBeacon (talk) 08:13, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOT#HOWTO. Also, this may be a copyright violation; some manufacturers use copyright to "protect" their diagnostic codes. Even if the intent is to illegally force all service work to franchised dealers, we shouldn't publish copyvio. Comment: "Delete per Verdatum" is a pretty awful line of reasoning in this case, compared to the guidelines suggested for AfD comments. Barno (talk) 19:23, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm adding this note linking to the discussion on my talk page so LonelyBeacon and anyone reviewing his/her contribution sees that LB dealt with a criticism by asking a question and explaining the AfD edit that caused the issue. LB checked a policy-related guideline that I pointed out, and listened to my explanation. I mentioned what WP:AADD says about sounding like a group of sockpuppets/meatpuppets with "per nom" (and "me too" was also implied by LB's AfD edit) without saying what reason the specific case fails our policies or why the specific case is so exceptional that consensus should support overriding a general guideline, and we've resolved the matter to everyone's satisfaction. Absolutely no gripe now with LonelyBeacon's effort to learn the ways of editing and participating in Wikipedia. Barno (talk) 07:14, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Majoreditor (talk) 21:08, 6 December 2007 (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.