Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foam pump


 * 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   speedy keep. AfD is not cleanup. (non-admin closure) buffbills7701 12:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Foam pump

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced article consisting almost entirely of original research. No evidence of notability. I am unable to find any reliable sources that cover the subject in any detail. - MrX 04:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Comment While a cursory search on Google Books failed to turn up anything relevant (most of the hits were related to firefighting equipment), I find it hard to believe that something this commonplace isn't documented in any reliable sources anywhere. Perhaps there are some trade publications that discuss foam pumps in more detail? I wouldn't know where to look, but this is the kind of thing where common sense indicates that there must be some sources somewhere. *** Crotalus *** 20:36, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking the same thing. Perhaps there's a more commonly used term for it? —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:58, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * A search for foaming dispenser turns up a lot of hits. —Largo Plazo (talk) 21:59, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Strong Keep/(edit) Possible Move (EDITED TO SAY I ONLY LOOKED AT PHOTOS AND LAYOUT-IT WAS horribly written)Also-the thing is apparently being called a "foamer", so a move may be needed?24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)Well written article so far. The foam pump delivery system may have some other names, (and I will look around), but this product delivery device is used daily by a lot of people and why shouldn't it have an article? 24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:05, 21 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect into Soap dispenser. If we consider foam pumps in the broad sense, there is a good bit of material out there about foam pumps (often called proportioning systems) used for foam based firefighting, or foam based insulation, or foam based plastics construction, enough for a keep. If we want to restrict to just the household soap foam pumps, I found a few refs from nationalpurity.com, ask.com and lifehacker.com. There are also patents to draw from, but they aren't considered RS in the context of AfD. In my opinion, there is not quite enough depth to satisfy WP:GNG, but there is enough verifiable information for the section Soap dispenser. Per WP:PRESERVE, we should preserve verifiable information rather than deleting it, hence merge. I'd be happy to reconsider should others find more in depth RS. --Mark viking (talk) 23:13, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

The article was a mess, and coincidentally I almost ran into an edit-war while I was trying to fix the article because another editor was right on top of me undoing the spelling and other improvements that I was trying to make. If you think about how many boxes of hair-dye are purchased in the US alone, you will realize how prevalent this device is. And it is a little mysterious to consumers because the instructions for use are very different from past instructions and there is less product, with none that I can see price reduction. There are environmental claims that may or may not be valid but the ones in the article were unreffed, gibberish, and too promotional so I yanked them.24.0.133.234 (talk) 23:40, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * The thing is not a soap foam dispenser exactly. It is used for liquids. I have been editing the article from the point of view of hair dye dispensing since the "foamer" is /has been rolled-out on most of the major hair dyes available to consumers-(switched from old methods/dispensers).
 * Keep Discussion indicates item is clearly notable. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 23:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:17, 22 November 2013 (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) 01:34, 28 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy Keep Not understanding why this has been carried forward. As there is clearly no consensus to delete, the discussion should be terminated.  AFD is not cleanup. Warden (talk) 11:58, 28 November 2013 (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.