Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic pressure pipe systems

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. MastCell ^Talk 22:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic pressure pipe systems (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

This article is unencyclopedic content with uncorrectable vandalism, and possible advertisement. I am requesting a delete and salt. This article was started by a sockfarm master who was trying to use WP as a pro and con how-to and professional reference on installing piping systems, through copyvio from incorrectly attributed sources in an admittedly niche area, and was playing good hand bad hand on said articles. Types of sources used indicated that the user was likely a professional pipe installer who wanted to eventually direct people to his business. Once the copyvio was cleared out, there is nothing of value in the article (most materials have their own article), and for over two weeks, no one has expressed any interest in editing the article. Due to the puppetry and the forks that have been created in the meantime (Plastic piping systems with identical content), I would also like the article to be salted. MSJapan 17:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any WP:ANI threads to point to? Is the editor now banned? If so WP:CSD#G5 should be sufficient. --Dhartung | Talk 17:59, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a series of checkusers. The socks were indef blocked, but this was created before the block if I remember correctly, so G5 wouldn't be applicable.--Isotope23 ^talk 18:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Well, delete as content fork. Probably little value in a redirect to plastic piping systems. --Dhartung | Talk 18:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a redirect would be pointless as I deleted plastic piping systems; it was more of the SPA's spamming.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - No amount of vandalism is uncorrectable. The article needs to be sourced, yes, otherwise, it looks to be factual and useful. I don't see anything in there that's unencyclopedic - that word is just too vague to be a reason for deletion. Put citation tags in it, and keep. The Transhumanist    18:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless this gets sourced before the close of this AFD. I agree with Transhumanist that this looks factual and useful, but it isn't verifiable at this point. Furthermore, this text is largely a carryover from article versions that were, as far as I can tell, written by a now blocked SPA sockpuppeteer who apparently fabricated sources; even WP:AGF I have a hard time taking anything in this article strictly on face value.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Transhumanist. Vandalism can be corrected and the topic seems encyclopedic, but needs references. Dbromage [Talk] 00:10, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is encyclopedic (see platform framing and balloon framing for construction articles). I admit, there is overlap with articles like water pipe and plumbing, but this article does focus on a specific type of piping system. It currently doesn't read like an ad, and I think references are the only real problem, but that can be fixed. 171.71.37.207 19:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The subject is notable (plastics are increasingly being used instead of metals in many applications) and the entry is of use to anyone seeking information on it. A bad article is better than no article! Sidefall 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it is not a good article yet, but that applies to many articles. We need to be wary of duplication, but this article has a good potential, as long as it is not allowed to become qan advertising vehicle for one particular commercial interest. Peterkingiron 17:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The topic is notable, and AfD is not clean-up. --Transfinite (Talk / Contribs) 17:01, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep Notable topic, either from chemical or plumbing view, just poorly written Mbisanz 21:59, 30 August 2007 (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.