- 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The result was withdrawn. (Non-admin closure). Till 13:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Film applicator (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log • Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Unencyclopedic concept. The page is a promotion for the company whose web page is the only reference. — alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:45, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose - the nubbin of what could grow in to a perfectly fine article. Google Books gives thousands of hits so it's not a proprietary thing to one company only. We need more coverage of real-world concerns in general and manufacturing technology in particular. The general problem of coating things is fundamental to a lot of industries. Unless this duplicates some other article, it should probalby stay. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:53, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mark Arsten (talk) 06:06, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe article is short on the balls it needs in the way of WP:SOURCES. If the author, or any other concerned party so chooses, we can consider the idea of; "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." Well, the article is already tagged, and in the meantime there are roughly another 5 days while we discuss it... Яεñ99 (talk) 11:41, 11 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]- Keep The testing of films and coatings is notable — see Basics of Coating Technology, for example. The rest is then a matter of ordinary editing per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 07:36, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment In a bold move, I struck through my "Delete" because quite frankly the information is useful, however WP:IMPERFECT the format may be Яεñ99 (talk) 11:09, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Procedural Keep No clear justification given for deletion (see WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC). ---Kvng (talk) 03:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—That's a reasonable point, although I will say that that's an essay rather than a policy. Nevertheless, it being promotional, whether or not you agree that it is, is a clear reason for deletion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so what does "unencyclopedic" mean to you in this case? A promotional article on a notable subject should be tagged/fixed, not deleted. --Kvng (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- You're right. My mistake.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so what does "unencyclopedic" mean to you in this case? A promotional article on a notable subject should be tagged/fixed, not deleted. --Kvng (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—That's a reasonable point, although I will say that that's an essay rather than a policy. Nevertheless, it being promotional, whether or not you agree that it is, is a clear reason for deletion.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 04:59, 14 August 2012 (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.