Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Travertine flooring


 * 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   deleted and redirected to travertine, which already contains more information on travertine flooring than the most recent version does. Prior version read like a sales brochure and was a likely copyvio; stubbed version had no context. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Travertine flooring

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Article had 3k of content a month ago, deleted to a one-liner by two edits from different anon IPs, on the very probable grounds of being lifted from commercial advertising. The big content was a reasonable stub, but too suspicious to restore. The small content is too poor to let survive. I've AfDed this rather than speedying it, just in the hope that someone might pick it up and rework it (In which case, keep it), otherwise it ought to be deleted. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete. I do love how the nom basically tries to use this forum for cleanup though.  ;-)  JBsupreme (talk) 08:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a fair target for speedy under WP:CSD as a fragment, but without doing legwork to trace the source I couldn't #G12 it for obvious copyright. As the topic itself is clearly worthy, I'd be annoyed if I'd worked on it myself and someone then speedied it. Prodding it wasn't going to achieve much, as there clearly aren't many editors watching it.
 * If someone has the time to go back to December, use that as a source rather than as content, and copy-edit it to remove the copyvio problem, it's probably saveable - but I've not got the time to do it. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Redirect in the interim to travertine, which currently contains more information about the use of this stone in architecture than this does. The subject may be worthy of an article, but this current stub has no context.  There were more informative versions in history but they read like unreferenced sales brochures, and the subject seems to be better covered at the article about the stone itself. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Redirection and adding a short section on use for flooring sounds good to me. We can recreate without salty prejudice if anyone wants to in the future. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment. If the past versions are suspected of being copyvio, this should be deleted before redirect.  This seems to be the fairly clear Right Thing to Do here, so I will probably just do it in a few hours unless strong objection is made. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:51, 27 January 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.