Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Treehouse attachment bolt (2nd nomination)


 * 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. Michig (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Treehouse attachment bolt
AfDs for this article: 
 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Can't find sources to show this meets our notability criteria Dougweller (talk) 09:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * keep. I have readily found several truly independent sources (& added some info into the article). I even didn't look for numerous synonyms. Clearly, the article has a potential for expansion. - Altenmann >t 11:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - if the (in my mind) more popular Hex bolt has no Article, and the Carriage bolt simply gets redirected to Screw, I too wonder about the WP:Notability of this device? Sources mostly seem to be places that will sell one. I !vote delete, but am very open to a merge with the Treehouse's Supports section. Exit2DOS • Ctrl • Alt • Del 11:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Classic "WP:Other stuff doesn't exist" argument. If we weren't wasting time deleting what we do have, then maybe more of us would be inclined to write obviously missing articles like Carriage bolt. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. IMO, only one of the cited sources is anywhere near good enough, being 3-4 sentences long. The rest don't measure up. One or two sentences in Treehouse would be okay, but not an entire separate article. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * keep It's obscure, it's niche and it's novel. However it exists and independent note has been made of it. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:33, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Refs 2,3 and 4 provide sufficient notability considering the niche application of TABs, also known as 'Garnier limbs'. There's also and several others.- MrX 13:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * comment Can anyone explain why perpetual incremental deletionist Red Pen is so intent on blanking and stripping sources from this article (to the point of 3RR) whilst it's at AfD, against our ancient policy that we avoid doing so to articles whilst at AfD? This is just trying to stack the deck against a decent review through AfD. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Dear Andy, as you know, it is because our policies require content to be supported by reliably published sources and also require that anyone wishing to restore that content WP:BURDEN supply appropriate sources before restoring the material. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  13:53, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * That's a misapplication of WP:BURDEN. Primary sources can be reliable for factual information, especially when the sources are from widely-recognized leaders in the art.- MrX 14:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * a primary source making promotional claims about its products is most obviously NOT a reliable source. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:35, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The above statement is correct, but as it stands, IMO the article has close to none promotional fluff ("bestest", "firstest", "beloved by customers", "relentlessly pursuing"- none of this). If you have objections to particular statements, please mark them as dubious or such. - Altenmann >t 20:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * delete there is a lack of evidence significant coverage by reliable third party sources for a stand alone article the majority of sources that have been edit-warred back into the article are non reliable / primary sources. a redirect/merge to a parent article would also be appropriate. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  14:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC) temporarily striking pending review of rewrite being done by Mr X. --  TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  15:46, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Did you not see the sources that I listed above? For example, #5.- MrX 14:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * comment I find some slight book coverage of Garnier limbs; none of "treehouse attachment bolts". I think an article on the former might be (barely) justified, but not for a general term. Mangoe (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep This good source explains that "As a whole, limb system designs have been referred to as “tree anchor bolts” or TABs. But it's the GL that started it all." As there are obvious alternatives to deletion, such as merger with treehouse, our editing policy indicates that we should not delete this page. Andrew (talk) 16:59, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS JAMMMY &#9734;&#9733; 18:31, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep This article has a long history of attempts at inserting promotion, but while this is annoying it is not a valid reason for deletion. The subject itself is indeed notable. VQuakr (talk) 21:42, 28 December 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.