Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baptistry heater

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 delete. Just Chilling (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Baptistry heater

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

Seriously, this is a heater for water in pools. One day some water heater marketing guy said "Let's name this a Baptistry heater and get a new market with religious institutions" and so the term was coined. The whole thing is an advert and non notable piece of equipment Fiddle Faddle 22:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:N. Search for reliable sources turned up one 1911 reference to an index of Popular Mechanics articles, and all others were either advertisements or narrative accounts of failures, fires, or miscellaneous experiences with cold water in the baptistry. There is also a Book of 56 pages, comprised of articles from "Wikipedia or other free sources online." But not a notable subject under Wikipedia policy. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 23:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note a 'good' amount is a direct copy and paste from http://answerparty.com/question/answer/can-a-natural-gas-water-heater-be-changed-to-a-propane-water-heater but this is an insufficient portion to speedy delete as a copyvio. Sufficient salvageable text remains. However, if the eventual consensus is to keep the article the copyvio must be removed if this has not been done already Fiddle Faddle 00:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*It appears to be a backwards copyvio – see e.g. this revision where some of the copied text is near the same but different and developed over time in our article.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as blatant WP:Spam. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 04:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC) OK, perhaps not entirely blatant but nevertheless the article does not demonstrate Notability either. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I will not go so far as User:Dodger67 goes in describing the article as spam, as it describes competing products in relatively neutral terms. But I see no evidence that the topic itself is truly notable. These are nothing more than water heaters, after all, and the article is more about a market segment than a discrete encyclopedic topic. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment When a page contains multiple trademark symbols ® it automatically trips my "spam alarm". It also contains at least one inline external link to a manufacturer's website. However, in terms of the technology and engineering there is no meaningful difference between heating a baptistry or a hot tub in a brothel. This article is implying that what people use the water for is sufficient reason to confer a distinct notability on the devices used to warm it. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Response Please consider tweaking your finely tuned spam alarm, Dodger67. The trademark symbols are a good indicator but not dispositive. If someone writes an article mentioning three competing brand names neutrally, using trademark symbols improperly, then the article has problems but is not itself spam. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - Point taken. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appears to be an advertisement masquerading as an article. Even if an article on this topic could be sustained through reliable sources, this isn't it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 06:24, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which brand name is being advertised here, Fuhghettaboutit? Competing brand names are mentioned in the article, and I do not see one favored over another. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple brands are being advertised, there's nothing in WP:PROMO that restricts the concept to pages that mention only one brand. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 07:00, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose all mentions of brands were removed. The two references given are both to ChurchFurniture affiliated sites (one being labeled as "educational") and have an advertising flavor, and aside from potentially only one Popular Mechanics article written in 1911, there do not appear to be any reliable sources. It is not a notable subject. Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Grand'mere Eugene, I agree with your conclusion that this specific topic is not notable. But suppose we were looking at an article about a notable topic, namely a commercial product? And suppose the article mentioned, in a neutral, well-referenced way, the three leading manufacturers of that type of product, without favoring one over the other? Would it be right to call such content "spam" or "advertising"? I think not. Pepsi-Cola advertisements do not include neutral discussion of Coca-Cola, after all. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:52, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen328, I agree that well-referenced mentions of one or more brand names should not raise WP:PROMO hackles, but in point of fact, they often do trigger that reaction for other editors. It's just that the decision hierarchy for me starts with notability, and failing that, the question of whether an article is promotional can be taken off the table. — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 17:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — On the sole ground of failing WP:N. I can understand why doubts about WP:PROMO arise, but 1) reading its history, I can't exclude that the article creation was just a good-faith tentative of writing a page about a non-notable product, 2) being a non-notable product, the main references that can be easily found are websites created by marketers, 3) the citation of manufacturing companies is something that can be included in an article in some circumstances and, as such, not an issue per se and 4) the perceived PROMO nature is in a debatable gray area, which would consume community resources. That's why I've motivated my vote citing only the notability issue. LowLevel73^(talk) 12:48, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, possible also WP:PROMO. --Jersey92 (talk) 00:00, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article is worthless. There is not a sufficient reason for having it on Wikipedia. I don't even understand it. If anything, we should merge this page into the Water heating page. Anyways, I think I could get all the info i wanted from the Aquarium heater page. BigRift (talk) 03:20, 28 October 2014 (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.