Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skid mount


 * 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. Ajpolino (talk) 23:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Skid mount

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

A dictionary definition, unsourced for a decade. This is certainly a real thing, but it doesn't seem particularly notable. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:38, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I think we should keep it or least merge its content into Pallet as it is part of that whole transportaion system Back ache (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep, passes WP:GNG based on significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources.

SailingInABathTub (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗  plicit  02:32, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Getting google books results for anytime the words "skid mount" are used in any context does not demonstrate WP:SIGCOV. These are mostly brief mentions of the fact that a skid mount was used, except for the first one, which appears to be about something else entirely, and the second one, which is a paper about a specific skid-mounted device, fine for verifiability, but not notability. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * #1 is a paper on the structural analysis of a skid mount, used to transport hydrogen tubes, #2 is a technical report on the safety of a skid mounted road sign - an application not currently in the article. #3, #4, & #6 each have several paragraphs describing the general principle of a skid mount which could be used as references for the first paragraph of this article. SailingInABathTub (talk) 03:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  23:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "Weak keep': This is not my area of expertise and a lot of what I found on Google Books, etc., was either paywalled or about the skid and not the mount, but the sources cited above seem to at least provide coverage beyond a dictionary definition. Gnomingstuff (talk) 22:20, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Keep, Notable commonly used concept - passes WP:GNG, I did a quick search on Google Scholar and three hundred or so articles discuss it (and its more an industry concept rather than scientific/arts/legal, so that isn't the best place to look), but from the context, its a common enough concept. Searching Proquest journals, gives 299 hits on the phrase, with a lot of mentions of the concept being used in industry/ trade journals. Deathlibrarian (talk) 03:26, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep, It is a way of storing and per above meets WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 17:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per Deathlibrarian and SailingInABathTub. Heartmusic678 (talk) 11:39, 28 January 2022 (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.