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. BusterD (talk) 22:42, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Life-cycle cost analysis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. I am also questioning if this is also written like an essay, not an article. Sarrail (talk) 23:44, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:24, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep This is a valid economic concept, and There are thousands of these pieces. It does need a cleanup (I would not mind adopting this), but is isn't original research. This is one essay thats a basic example Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 15:54, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:12, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is a common and fundamental concept in business eg. what is the cost of an EV vehicle over its lifetime, is LCCA. The problem with the article it has not been well developed. Not a reason to delete it though. -- GreenC 22:35, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Article meets WP:GNG per WngLdr34's comment above, and the writing style may need to be addressed but that's not an issue for AfD. Nothing about this article warrants deletion. - Aoidh (talk) 22:41, 9 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep As per GreenC's reasoning. MrsSnoozyTurtle 00:17, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Sufficient coverage is trivial to find (just click the JSTOR search button). Also, "badly written article" is not a valid deletion rationale. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:31, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is used by government websites and colleges. https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/pubs/htmlpubs/htm08732839/page01.htm https://www.srs.fs.usda.gov/pubs/59128 https://sustainable.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Guidelines_for_Life_Cycle_Cost_Analysis.pdf Dream Focus 18:53, 10 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and comments follow: I came across this article and after reading it I decided a rewrite was in order - I had to remove the copyright violations. Please read my edit summary if you have questions. It is now just stubbed, so I hope some other editors may continue the process. Bruxton (talk) 02:00, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The article has been rewritten and the subject is notable. It is a valid economic term. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I can tell you this is a notable subject. This was significantly covered in my engineering economics class during my curriculum in college. [1] [2] [3]. This is one of the most absurd AfDs I've ever seen, quite frankly. Did you do any check for sources before nominating? I think it's starting to SNOW... Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:03, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. A Google Scholar search finds many refs, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, these are SIGCOV and WP:RS in addition to the refs others linked. Therefore, this topic clearly passes WP:GNG. VickKiang (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Life-cycle assessment The topic is notable but there is no content here worth keeping. There are three sources here and 2 of them are about Life-cycle assessment, which is jargon for environmental assessment in contrast to this term which is jargon for financial assessment. If those two sources are merged, and they should be, that leaves one citation backing one sentence and several sentences without citations. I doubt the accuracy of all of this remaining content. I do not object to an article existing, and needed a rewrite is not a reason to delete an article from Wikipedia, but someone needs to draft a couple of sentences and citations if they want this kept. All of Vick's sources are valid but someone would need to bring them into this article. Bluerasberry (talk) 17:18, 13 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 14 December 2022 (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.