Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Plastic pressure pipe systems (2nd nomination)

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 - article simply requires some good old fashion cleanup.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plastic pressure pipe systems

Unencyclopedic, and no attempt at finding sources seen since last AfD. This article was created quite a while ago by a now-banned user (some of the details are in the first AfD) who was apparently only interested in having the article say what he wanted; the article was lively until the socks were cleaned out, and all of a sudden there was no one there. The earlier consensus to keep leaned strongly in favor of there needing to be better sources for the article. Seven months later, nothing has really changed, except for some repetitive header vandalism. Each one of these types of pipes already has its own article, and there is nothing of substance that can be said that isn't already in one of the other articles in more depth. MSJapan (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I agree. Even though it do have some information about it, it isn't really needed any more, and each type of pipe already has its own article. There isn't much more information about it.

—— The Unknown Hitchhiker 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This serves an encyclopedic use as an overview of the different types of plastic pressure pipe systems. A reader wanting to know about the subject could well find this article via a search, but not one of the articles about specific types of systems which have technical names. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:06, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject seems notable, and I don't see the articles for individual types of pipe that MSJapan mentions (only articles for the individual types of plastic used in the pipe, which is very different). Klausness (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Comments made in previous AfD still obtain. This is an article that requires work not deleting. SilkTork *^YES! 00:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is an obvious {{sofixit}} issue, not something to be resolved through deletion channels. (jarbarf) (talk) 02:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If no one has bothered to add sources to or improve this article in any way after more than half a year ... I find it highly unlikely that anyone ever will. Blueboar (talk) 03:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This discussion was re-opened after being incorrectly closed as a SNOW closure. Rudget . 13:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rudget . 13:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs improvement, not a delete. That no one has improved it is a shame but should not be a reason for removal.AlbinoFerret (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete crufty and badly titled, seems to be used only for promotion of the significance of these things. A smerge to plastic pipe might be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just sourced a few of the statements and if I had time, I would go through and clean the rest up. Plastic pipe redirects to this page so a smerge would not be appropriate. I can vouch that the information is mostly accurate and within 10 minutes of searching google (books and web), I was able to reference half the fact tags. spryde | talk 16:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the consensus was clear last time. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After reading the nom, I didn't expect much from this article. Now that I've read it, I deem it a keeper. — Athaenara ✉ 21:08, 28 March 2008 (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.