Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Contact fuse


 * 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The result was nomination withdrawn. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 20:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Contact fuse

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Contested prod, removed by another editor. Article fails WP:GNG due to lack of WP:RS. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep - Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia and this article has the potential to become useful as an encyclopedic reference. Article is verifiable by independent sources. Oonissie (talk) 18:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: Oonissie was the user who removed the prod. I have yet to see any sources that refer to this specific patent. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 18:35, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You are confused - this article is not about a patent. It is a useful and informative stub article about the "contact fuse". More than 20 articles wikilink to Contact fuse. Oonissie (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, most of which you just added or linked. I went with the patents because that's the only source given on the whole page. This whole article has no other sourcing aside from the one primary source - that is, the patent. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that wiki-linking articles is somehow improper? What is your point? Oonissie (talk) 19:29, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I was merely pointing out that a bunch of links do not equate to the meeting of notability criteria. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 19:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep. Contact fuses are very common. I can't think of any reason they shouldn't have their own article, it's a notable subject. The patent mention is a little confusing and implies wrongly contact fuses are 'owned' by a specific company or idividual, and they aren't. Szzuk (talk) 19:19, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep Worthwhile topic, nominator seems to have failed to do any other research or to have read WP:BEFORE If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a good candidate for AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:48, 3 June 2010 (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.