Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pneumatic bladders

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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumatic bladders

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A definition with no indication of notability or references. Disputed prod. noq (talk) 19:01, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is already dealt with at Spill containment. I would suggest a redirect, except that the phrase is also used in other, very different contexts, as evidenced by its occurrence in a number of other WP articles. Jimmy Pitt talk 22:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Step 3 of the AfD process was not completed. It has been fixed. —KuyaBriBri^Talk 22:27, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:26, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because pneumatic bladders have many applications in addition to spill containment. Also move the article to Pneumatic bladder, now a redlink that has incoming links. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 03:49, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:05, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article moved to Pneumatic bladder. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pneumatic bladder has 8 incoming links from other articles. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 14:39, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing from delete to weak keep. The subject is possibly worthy of its own article, but if it is to be kept it needs a lot of expansion to cover as many uses of pneumatic bags as possible: some of the links are from articles on subjects (winemaking, for example) that are not mentioned in the article as it stands. Jimmy Pitt talk 11:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Evidence of notability just isn't sufficient to support an article. Figureofnine (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2010 (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.