Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treehouse attachment bolt


 * 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   no consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 07:34, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Treehouse attachment bolt

 * – ( View AfD View log )

A sub-set of lag bolts. Since lag bolt only warrants a paragraph in the screw article, this subject scarcely even warrants a redirect. far too specialised. Also verging towards being an advert. &mdash; RHaworth 11:59, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete it looks like advertising for a trademarked product to me. Eeekster (talk) 12:03, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete as spam. VQuakr (talk) 14:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Delete. Per nom; I am unable to find evidence of notability. RichardOSmith (talk) 18:51, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The sources provided, although not scholarly or news media, seem to be reliable enough to provide information on this item. Obviously only of interest to people interested in building treehouses, but I don't see why WP should not have an article on it. The fact that other hardware items are undercovered is not a reason to delete this informative article. Borock (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Keep The original edit I created was free from ambiguous ads linking to other sites attempting to sell their TABs, but has since been updated mostly with original research and the like. --Pgifford1987 (talk) 01:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The article is quite informative whereas lag bolt is almost useless in explaining what is meant. Note that there is a variety of terms for this topic and TAB might be explained in sources as Tree Anchor Bolt.  See Support system innovations for some good coverage of the topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep This article needs more articles in support if anything, or it may just be in the wrong place. It is about a revolutionary new device that sparked a diverse fledgling industry (building and suspension in trees, bridges, ziplines, treehouses) that does not have much certified public material to cite from yet. The private interests cited in it are currently the best sources of publicly available research and practice on the subject. They are the best sources of free information as well as to find supplies. It may be an uphill battle to avoid seeming an advert, it needs some help not to endorse a particular product, but should stay in. Jefryclair (talk) 16:53, 25 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Keep The problems with the article are a matter of editing. The subject matter itself is sourced and the wording can be, and is currently being, fixed.  Dennis Brown (talk) 18:04, 25 May 2011 (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.