Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Faux Rock


 * 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. Atama makes a good point against Tavix's arguments, and the only other comments in favor of keeping are simply parroting that. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 04:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Faux Rock

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This article had a proposed deletion tag which was about to expire. However, an editor asserted on the talk page that the subject was notable, and (incorrectly) objected to its deletion with a "hangon" tag. I'm giving that person and others a chance to defend this article. When searching for the term I can't find any agreement on what "faux rock" actually is; apparently everyone has a different way to make it. There doesn't seem to be any real "industry" despite what is claimed in the article. Delete per WP:NEO. --  At am a chat 17:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. I added the proposed deletion on the basis the term wasn't notable and that's still my view. There are search links on the article talk page which show the term is used, however there doesn't appear to be significant coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 18:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete The term itself probably exists, but it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Most of the article is a how-to guild on making faux rocks. WP:NOT. This could possible be transwikied to WikiSource or Wiktionary if they want it. -Atmoz (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions.  KuyaBriBri Talk 21:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep but Clean-up this definitely exists and with a Google search, it is easy to see that there are sources out there. The article is not in good shape, but with proper references and clean-up, this could potentially be a well-informative article. Tavix | Talk  23:05, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - Here's the problem. I personally think it's a neat and interesting concept, but prior to proposing this AfD I searched for the term on Google and checked out some web sites, some which even claim to be training centers to teach you how to do this. They're all different, and there doesn't seem to be any definitive way to make fake stone. None of them has any more claim to credibility than another, I can't see how we can hope to make an article with information that is truly verifiable. Do we list the 50 different formulas/techniques for doing it? Without any reliable sources how can we confidently make a real article? As it stands it's a how-to for one particular way to make faux rock, how would you clean that up? I honestly would like a good answer, and I'd like to see real references, if I saw that I wouldn't endorse deletion. --  At am a chat 23:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: Do we list the 50 different formulas/techniques for doing it? - no we don't because Wikipedia is not a how-to.


 * Weak Keep per Tavix. -- The New  Mikemoral  ♪♫ 00:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per Tavix.--AuthorityTam (talk) 18:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep per above.208.120.246.217 (talk) 00:40, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - sure the term is in use and there are Google hits, but that does not mean that the subject is a notable one. As Atama says, the Ghits that I have read do not amount to significant coverage supporting notability per the GNG. – ukexpat (talk) 17:05, 24 June 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.