Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaver pipes


 * 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   no consensus. (non-admin closure)  TheSpecialUser TSU 01:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Beaver pipes

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Moved to wikiversity as requested at: http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Beaver_pipes SajjadF (talk) 02:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)  • Gene93k (talk) 16:26, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep There are plenty of references. It easily passes GNG. Why shouldn't it be an article at Wikipedia? Also, I see the entry at wikiversity, but where was it "requested"? Anna Frodesiak (talk) 16:51, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Encyclopedic topic, meets GNG. The piece has some stylistic problems which need remedy, but that's an editing matter. Carrite (talk) 18:36, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It feels a bit like copyvio, but I can't find it. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 18:40, 15 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 13:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)




 * Keep Passes GNG with ample reliable sources. Electric Catfish 15:02, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment UncleG found Flow device. This could merge into that. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 23:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge into Flow device And I think a sub-section under Beaver Dam is also needed with a link to the main article Flow device is also warranted. Jrcrin001 (talk) 05:44, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SarahStierch (talk) 16:35, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.