Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Roof cleaning


 * 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   keep. L Faraone  13:19, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Roof cleaning

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

A dedicated article on this is not justified. It's just cleaning, that is done on roof and it is NOT something extensive enough to warrant an article. The article consists of self-explanatory things supported with news reports so that article can exist to support questionable external links and citations. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 03:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete There could be an article, but none of the sources cover the topic itself -- just small aspects of it. Borock (talk) 04:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination is not justified because there are obvious alternatives to deletion per WP:BEFORE. These include expansion of the article by reference to readily available sources such as Cleaning Roofs.  And WP:INSPECTOR seems especially relevant in this case... Warden (talk) 09:42, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Doesn't work in this case. The article's been up for over 2 years.  srsrox  BlahBlahBlah...   20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Your counterargument is fallacious. The length of time that an article exists without improvement does not demonstrate unimprovability.  Unimprovability is demonstrated by researching the subject and coming up empty handed.  What research have you done to find documentation of the subject, and what have you come up with?  Compare your answer with the answers of Colonel Warden and Mark viking here.  Uncle G (talk) 19:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Weak delete Curious to see if anyone will add anything to the article that would differentiate this type of cleaning to any other type of cleaning job. However, it's been 2 years.  srsrox  BlahBlahBlah...   20:30, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep I added a bit of prose and two more reliable sources verifying the prose. In the article references, the Miami Herald refs, the Journal of Phycology ref, the Atmospheric Environment journal ref and the IEEE conference ref are all reliable sources; the last two are in depth. There are also sources out there discussing roof cleaning and its effect on the use of roofs as water catchments in dry areas, and of course, lots of domestic roof cleaning sources such as the one Warden pointed out. Cleaning snow off roofs is another important issue in the high latitudes. The presence of multiple reliable sources shows that the topic is notable. While the article could be a spam target, possible spam suggests editing the article, not deleting it. A notable topic, per WP:GNG and no insurmountable problems with the article, per WP:SURMOUNTABLE, lead to a keep recommendation. --Mark viking (talk) 00:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment Did you notice unusual amount of references to de Marne, Henri. ? It looks like this page was setup to promote his consulting service. Multiple reliable sources are present, therefore it is notable is a flawed argument. There are multiple reliable sources detailing how to wash glassware, cleaning lens, sterilizing dental tools, etc yet these topics don't necessarily deserve its own article Cantaloupe2 (talk) 10:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * In AfD these days, notability is based on whether a topic meets notability guidelines, such as WP:GNG. Saying that a topic does not deserve an article when notability tests say otherwise implies that some other reason overrides notability. But I don't see such a reason. For instance, claiming that the topic is too trivial would simply a personal opinion and probably an instance of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. We do have articles on window cleaner, exterior cleaning, and chimney sweep, too, all important tasks and respectable professions. --Mark viking (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Although it seems like a strange article subject, it seems to be obviously notable (roof cleaning as a subject is dealt with in numerous pieces online and in print).  Beyond that, it doesn't seem any more trivial than the article on window cleaning, which deals with many of the same aspects of its topic as this article does for roof cleaning, and which has never faced a deletion discussion.  Roof cleaning seems to have its own distinctive purposes and tools, which sets it apart as a unique field in maintenance.  The page probably needs work and expansion, but deletion seems too drastic a step.  Chri$topher  22:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep Significant subject, with specialized techniques and a specialized literature.  DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 24 April 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.