Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wafflemat


 * 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   delete. ( X! ·  talk )  · @178  · 03:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wafflemat

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

Has been speedied before (at least once). Besides the nonreason of needing cleanup, it lacks reliable sources to establish notability of a corporation or product.

Google Books has a few brief mentions indicating it is probably patented, Google News had zero results.

This is likely simple spam, but using the AfD process since it has been deleted previously. tedder (talk) 02:19, 21 July 2009 (UTC) *Keep - Poorly formatted - agree. I thought it was SPAM too - found it while on my weekly stint at NPP - went to research it on Google - and by the time I got back it was already consigned to the dust heap. Wafflemat is now a generic term (although I have no doubt it was originally someones product). This article is clearly salvageable. Easy on the trigger folks; our job is not simply to dispatch, but also to save when they warrant salvage. Williamborg (Bill) 02:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Revised below Tadder's comment.
 * Delete. Poorly formatted spam. Unsalvageable. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 02:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: keeping isn't a problem, but can you furnish some reliable sources that have coverage of it? I agree about "easy on the trigger"- that's why I brought it here, actually. However, my quick search didn't find anything of merit. tedder (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Just spent a bit of time trying to rewrite it and the foundation style (post-tensioned tenons in concrete beams with a slab poured on top) is legitimate - the approach existed 30 years ago. However the term Wafflemat SystemTM is a registered trademark. You are right; this is indeed SPAM. Delete it - Williamborg (Bill) 03:27, 21 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Delete Unsuitable content. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Strong delete, maybe speedy as spam (again). It appears that they copied the source from another page that mirrored us at one time, and that article was deleted as spam previously (see the log) - thus the poor formatting.  I'm inclined, despite my desire to speedy it, to let it sit here in AFD so we can G4 in the future if necessary. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 23:46, 21 July 2009 (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.