Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bong cooler


 * 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. Page moves during AFD discussions are extremely disruptive and it is disingenuous for the person who moved the page to then vote to redirect the page to the new location. In any event this isn't sourced and is original research so the voices argusing for deletion are much better placed then those arguing for a keep Spartaz Humbug! 16:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC). Struck comment on the vote as it turns out the move was made by another user and this was just moved to correct the capitalisation. Nevertheless, it does show how confusing and disruptive page moves are during an AFD as the logs don't follow the page and it is incredibly difficult sometimes to follow the history of an article when you are closing a discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 17:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Bong cooler

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Published original invention, i.e., original research. Sources are from someone's personal "howto" sites. No independent sources found. Xuz (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Cleanup and Keep You know what, this looks like an interesting device.  There are certainly plenty of independent sites with mention of one of these.  I can see that none of the ones I looked at would be what Wikipedia calls a reliable source, and there is no specific assertion of notability but I think this is one of those occasions when we ignore the rules. Guinness (talk)


 * Keep a notable piece of computing equipment. A lack of notable sources is not a reason for deletion. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 16:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides, I just found a reliable source for it. Hello, My Name Is SithMAN8 (talk) 16:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions.  -- - 2/0 (cont.) 03:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment article has been moved to Evaporative Cooling Tower. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge & redirect to Evaporative cooler if WP:RS can be found about it. OTOH, this seems like a niche-application device, so maybe better to put it in Computer cooling .A lack of sources is a good reason to delete because WP:V is a core policy, as well as being evidence for the WP:N guideline. It indeed does look interesting, but that's not the criterion for inclusion. Someone quick get us some sources so we can decide if it's got enough WP:V to merit inclusion in those articles or if I should change my !vote to delete as a piece of WP:NFT lore. DMacks (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. The move of the article to Evaporative Cooling Tower was clearly inappropriate, as the article only descibes one particular application of such cooling towers amongst a minute group of hobbyists, whereas the total subject of evaporative cooling towers is vast, and can be dealt with in the cooling tower article until there is enough content to split it off. No reliable sources have been offered to support the article contents, and this is precisely the opposite of the kind of article that should be given any leeway in regard to sourcing. There is no reason to suppose that offline or non-English sources will exist for this subject, so we should judge it by the non-existence of online sources in English. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
 * delete if it's interesting to more than the author there must be some references it can draw on, especially with so many online publications devoted to computer technology. If none can be found it fails any test of notability. JohnBlackburne (talk) 15:26, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect to Evaporative cooler Bongo  matic  03:14, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Redirect - I see it's already been done. davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail)  16:18, 27 November 2009 (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.