Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soap dispenser

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 01:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No claim to notability of soap dispensers. If there really is something special about soap dispensers it should be part of Soap. Schzmo 00:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Afd is an example of why PROD is working so well. Within two hours, there are significant changes to the article eliminating reason for delete. Please consider PROD if you don't already use it. FloNight ^talk 02:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Soap dispensers are pretty separate from soap as a whole, and I'd be interested in knowing more about them - for instance, when they started appearing in public restrooms, how they work, various types, etc. This article could be expanded to include that stuff, and the soap arrticle could link to it. Excellent topic for an encyclopedia; if I can find any info I may write this up myself. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete. Pez dispensers with Pez; soap dispensers with soap. Bucketsofg 00:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soap and soap dispensers have a different relationship from Pez and Pez dispensers. Soap has a whole history and life outside of soap dispensers, whereas Pez doesn't have any real history outside of Pez dispensers. Soap and soap dispensers are just not as inextricably tied together as Pez and Pez dispensers. The two subjects are less "of a piece" and don't need to be in the same article in the way that Pez and Pez dispensers did. Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr. 00:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Keep. I imagine we could expand this article with a more elaborate explanation and some pictures. Royboycrashfan 00:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above and expand --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 00:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Soap dispenser is different from soap FloNight ^talk 00:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete substub, then enter as an article request. This is not an article, this is not the start of an article, this is not a good stub. This does not provide any information that is not implicit in the article title, and its presence in Wikipedia performs no service to anyone. This is the expression of someone's desire that Wikipedia have an article on soap dispensers; that is, it is an improperly executed article request. The topic itself is perfectly good, and any time that someone has enough information to write a decent stub they can re-create the article. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not any more! FloNight ^talk 01:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Changing vote to Keep in present form. Dpbsmith (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom and Dpbsmith's comments. --BrownHairedGirl 01:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge Automatic Soap Dispenser into this article. --Hyperbole 01:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should probably mention that I took the liberty of actually making that merge. It seems clear to me that "Manual soap dispenser" and "Automatic soap dispenser" probably don't deserve separate Wikipedia entries. --Hyperbole 01:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per FloNight. --Firsfron 01:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Fine little article on an everyday item. dbtfz^talk 02:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep good improvements, needs more. Ziggurat 03:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable topic and now a good little article. Capitalistroadster 03:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete Humorous if come across on random pages, but who's going to look up "soap dispenser"? TKE 03:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep... it's kind of worthy of its own article, I suppose, but there's a definite need to expand it into something truly encyclopedic. And no article on soap dispensers is complete without a mention of the infamous Yale soap dispenser ordeal... --Kinu ^t/_c 03:55, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per above. ¡Dustimagic! ^(T/C) 04:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, although the tautological opening line should be rewritten. ("A soap dispenser is a device that dispenses soap...") The Disco King 04:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • - Thanks! That's a lot better! The Disco King 17:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although I expect more people will read the article in connection with this nomination than over the next 5-10 years . . . Monicasdude 05:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I enjoy clean hands and keeping articles about common, everyday items.Tombride 07:35, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, but would have voted delete based on dicdef if the article would still have the form at the time of nomination. - Andre Engels 09:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Good info source.--Tdxiang 陈 鼎 翔 (Talk)ContributionsContributions Chat with Tdxiang on IRC! 09:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, this is a good article. An encyclopaedia should definitely include this. The article can be expanded if we get more sources. Its current state looks fine though. --Terence Ong 10:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bobby P. Smith Sr. Jr.. Feezo (Talk) 10:19, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Definatelly deserves to stay Dolive21 11:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, soap dispensers are important. JIP | Talk 14:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per JIP. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 14:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Soap dispensers are a real, tangible thing. Given the notability of some of the stuff we do keep, I can't believe soap dispensers would even be in question. 204.69.40.7 14:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. It needs improvement, but I think this is definitely an article to which "wiki is not paper" applies. --kingboyk 15:51, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting and well written. Nigelthefish 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Interesting and a good start. Notable enough topic, everyday item. ProhibitOnions 20:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - interesting, notable, a start. Certainly needs some improvement. Oliver Keenan 20:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, would be great to see a reference to a notable event where a soap dispenser was crucial though. Deizio 00:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, soap dispensers are notable and different to soap. I'd be curious to see what it turns into. -- Mithent 00:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Slightly not in accordance with AfD rules but given the new version I'd suggest Speedy keep JoshuaZ 04:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have one...delete it because they obviously don't exist and are not sold by companies --DragonWR12LB 06:55, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I guess, b ut it would be better if Booking563 were to create whole articles instead of just looking round the cubicle and creating a stub on each thing he sees. Just zis Guy you know? 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Obvious keep. Good stuff. Grace Note 09:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - That's three "deletes" versus thirty-two "keeps." I realize that this isn't a straight voting contest, but consensus seems to be pretty clear here, and the objections brought up by the dissenters seem to have been addressed. The Disco King 15:56, 23 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.