- 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 of the debate was keep. Mailer Diablo 02:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This page was de-prodded as a device that really exists. Nobody is questioning the existence of this tool, simply if it is notable or not. This article makes absolutely no claims to notability and I am not entirely sure that this tool can make a claim to notability. Furthermore, this article really is little more than a "how to" on the device. James084 14:52, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete WP is not a how-to on obscure tools, real or imaginary. KillerChihuahua?!? 15:08, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong Keep. 79,000 Google hits makes it notable and not at all obscure. WP, like any good encyclopedia, most certainly is a how-to of tools, Category:Tools is chock full of them. Quick, what's a filter funnel, or a ball mill? GRuban 15:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I based my statement above on WP:NOT which states Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. If this is no longer applicable then perhaps we need to have a discussion on removing that particular line? James084 15:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Well cited. You're probably right that the actual "how to" section of the article should be shortened. I stand by my Keep however, there's plenty of precedent on having articles about tools, and how they work. GRuban 16:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In my opinion, "notability" shouldn't normally come into a discussion of a tool because it is too hard to define in that context. Some might think it is not notable because it is too common, others might argue that a tool is not notable because it is too obscure. I think verifiability is a better standard for tools. Crypticfirefly 04:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Maybe a better question is what makes this "tool" different from a Beurre mixer. The Beurre mixer debate just closed with the article being deleted. That article had no more information than this article. James084 01:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Just looked at the Beurre mixer AfD, it wound up being transwikied to Wiktionary (Wiktionary:Beurre mixer). But it really was a definition, not an article. In case anyone is wondering, in the U.S. it is the kitchen tool that is normally called an electric hand blender. Crypticfirefly 05:03, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- definitely Keep. A well-established device. I'll take a picture of mine for the article, and see what else I can do to improve it. —Steve Summit (talk) 19:56, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. I have to wonder about the notability/article-worthiness of this. It's just a charcoal starter. -- Krash (Talk) 00:14, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep verifiable tool. Have added some info. Crypticfirefly 03:36, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but continue to cleanup. --Karnesky 07:46, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete unless cleaned up and verified. Stifle 22:09, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Stifle, what in the article do you think needs to be verified? Crypticfirefly 04:56, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- notable (if somewhat dangerous) tool. Haikupoet 01:16, 4 March 2006 (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.