Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global powder metallurgy property database

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. W.marsh 03:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Global powder metallurgy property database

This article appears to be spam. It was created by the user EPMA and references only epma.com. —Ben FrantzDale 13:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT 15:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as blatant advertising. Demiurge 19:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is actually an important database sponsored byt several trade organizations in technical field. The editors obviously need help in writing it.

I am, incidentally, a little alarmed atthe tendency to list articles for AfD when the reasonable step would be to place a warning --whether a template or personal. Editors who do inadequate articles about significant organizations deserve help, not censure. They are often earnest and sincere and just need to know how we do things here. If it turns out there's nothingthere, then that's another matter. DGG 04:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached
Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, trialsanderrors 05:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - 122 Google hits on this very specific search term [1] - it's not a lot, but then, this is a very specialized database. The article desperately needs help - it doesn't explain its importance and is a borderline copyvio (it isn't ripped entirely from one source, that I can find, but it looks like a lot of individual sentences are). Still, I get the feeling that this is verifiable, does have some importance, and deserves an article. --Hyperbole 06:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Google hits.Sharkface217 20:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep and cleanup. As said above, "editors who do inadequate articles about significant organizations deserve help, not censure." --- RockMFR 00:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and Cleanup to remove the blatant advertising. We're not paper, so I feel we've got room for this mildly notable database. But the advertising sets my teeth on edge. WMMartin 18:50, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per above; I've done some cleanup and removed the blatant spam. Sandstein 06:26, 6 December 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.