Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cariphalte (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   no consensus. (WP:NPASR). (non-admin closure) NorthAmerica1000 08:07, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Cariphalte
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Very short article with unclear notability and without the third party sources. No improvement since previous Afd four years ago. Also it was said during the previous Afd that there are many non-trivial hits by Google books, it is still questionable if these hits satisfy WP:RS and WP:GNG. As an alternative to deletion, it could be redirect to Asphalt and mention it there. Beagel (talk) 17:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:51, 30 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Yes, there are lots of reliable book sources:, , , . They seem academic or otherwise reliable technical publications. Notable per WP:GNG.-- cyclopia speak! 17:26, 1 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment. The first book does not qualify as independent source as it is done by Shell Bitumen. The second source mentions the name cariphalte only six times, although it has more than 400 pages. Cariphalte is not the amin topic of this book and it is clearly not a significant coverage. The third source mention it only in the 8th chapter, which is written by an employee of Shell Bitumen, so it is not an independent source. The fourth source is written and published by Shell, so, again, it s not an independent source. So, these sources are not sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG but probably are enough for merging it into Asphalt. Beagel (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, even if I disagree with the assessment of the second book source (WP:GNG does not require the topic to be the main source topic, and the coverage is significant enough to be used as a RS), it is true that other sources seem not to be independent. However I'd say the source in the third book, while written by a Shell employee, is within an overall independent book, so it could half-qualify. In any case I'd rather be lenient and keep the article; otherwise merge. -- cyclopia speak! 14:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 03:01, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

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


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2014 (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.