Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Braiding machine

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. JForget 00:12, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Braiding machine

Article is unencyclopedic, does not use grammatical English, is unsourced, is uncategorized, and may be a commercial post from the company whose equipment's picture is linked within the text (http:\\guanbochina.com). This is the first and only contribution of GBbraider. The article is an orphan. - PKM (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the article clearly needs a rewrite, but the subject matter is notable enough. Google returns over 20,000 hits for "braiding machines". Bazonka (talk) 15:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- … which of course means nothing at all, so here's a better rationale for the closing administrator to hang xyr hat on: Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The chapter on braiding and narrow fabrics in Wellington Sears handbook of industrial textiles (ISBN 9781566763400), the chapter on braid in Accessories of Dress (ISBN 9780486433783) and the chapter on braiding processes and machines in Textile technology (ISBN 9781569903711) contain more than enough information on the history and types of braiding machines (from their invention in 1748 by Thomas Walford to 2-D and 3-D braiding machines) for this stub to be both fixed and expanded. This is a stub with scope for expansion. We keep those. Uncle G (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (X! · talk) · @162 · 02:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Uncle G. JJL (talk) 04:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article reads like an ad. Delete and try again.keystoneridin! (talk) 04:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Article desperately needs clean-up, but the subject is legitimate. —SlamDiego_←T 05:26, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Legitimate subject, terrible entry. Hairhorn (talk) 07:26, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve. It is not a good idea to nominate articles for deletion because they are of low quality. DGG (talk) 16:52, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw? You've convinced me that the proper response is cleanup, not deletion. - PKM (talk) 18:24, 2 August 2009 (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.