Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Upholstery Frame


 * 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  KeepClearly notable. Spartaz Humbug! 22:15, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Upholstery Frame

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Non Notable article, no citations Work permit (talk) 01:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: there are citations now. --Blechnic (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Problems such as needing cleanup, reliable sources, copyediting and verifiability can be dealt with. I will tag the article accordingly. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  02:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to find a way to repair it before I tagged it for deletion, but I couldn't find a way without a total rewrite. I'll add it's been in this state for two years--Work permit (talk) 03:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case, why can't the article be rewritten? -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  04:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And until someone does so, shouldn't it be deleted?--Work permit (talk) 04:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * To suggest that is saying that all articles tagged with cleanup-rewrite need to be deleted until someone recreates it. The template was created in the first place to attract the attention of other editors in order to rewrite articles needing a substantial rewrite. -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  04:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the tag, and of course others. I apologize for not being clear in what I mean to say.  I can find nothing in the article that indicates it is WP:Note.  Nor did I find any WP:RS in a quick search that hints that the subject matter is noteworthy.  Perhaps it should be merged into Upholstery.  I'll note that Upholstery has no WP:Citations either, but I have not nominated it for WP:AFD--Work permit (talk) 05:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. Agreed: Merge with Upholstery. Thanks, -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  21:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

*Keep/Merge - seems to be plenty of possible references to expand from. Article could use work but seems a suitable topic for an encyclopaedia.-Hunting dog (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I only see a list of books that use the term Upholsetery frame. Is there something you've read in one of those books which leads you to think there is a notable article here? Sorry for asking what may be a dumb question, I can't read the books themselves from the link you provided.   FYI, I've read through 32 articles in Proquest and didn't see anything to build on.--Work permit (talk) 05:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Merge I'd support a merge with Upholstery if that makes it easier to find consensus. The reason I didn't initially propose it is that Upholstery already has a section, Upholstery.  That section has most if not all the useful information in this article.--Work permit (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to support merge/redirect based on current content (and realise a lot of current unref'd/duplicated content would be removed in process). Just didn't want to have it implied we shouldn't have an article on this at all if others do have access to sources to expand beyond the sub-section. -Hunting dog (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep The topic is notable enough and the possibility of writing a full article is there. This AfD is being used to force a clean-up of this article by someone, anyone, but the  nominator.  I disagree with this.  I might even work on this article, some, but I'm doing any more gun point improvements for people who nominate perfectly notable subjects for deletion because they're not sourced or need clean-up.  No citations gets a tag, not a deletion, and it isn't "non notable," so the nomination is bogus.  --Blechnic (talk) 06:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yawn There are citations now, and the nominators assertion it's "non-notable" isn't backed up by anything. Because there's nothing to back it up.  --Blechnic (talk) 07:10, 8 June 2008 (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.