Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Welding inspection


 * 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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:39, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Welding inspection

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

WP:ESSAY, WP:OR, WP:NOT, WP:NOTMANUAL all apply here. Nothing of encyclopedic value. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Delete appears to be pasted from a manual of regulations. Empty Buffer (talk) 10:27, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree, but couldn't find said manual. If you can, feel free to nom under G12. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 10:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete. Have searched for a number of samples of the source and can't find any, but it's a clear WP:NOT etc violation. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete as unsourced and the how-to rule. There's a reason that we don't have "how to" guides, not the least of which is that we don't want to encourage people to do things like their own welding inspections ("looks OK to me").  For the same reason, we don't have step-by-step articles about how to defuse an IED or how to safely make meth.  Perhaps it's a direct copy, or perhaps the author just happens to sound like a technical manual, but there's no reason to keep this.  Mandsford 13:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree that we don't have these things, so why don't we have a CSD about not having things we don't have? Sigh. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 13:51, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Not a bad suggestion, but even if we did have what we don't have but maybe should have, WP:SPEEDY requires an administrator to conclude that it's a page "with no practical chance of surviving discussion", and that's a tough call to make. In this instance, I don't see how one could write anything informative about the subject without going into how-to.  What's left after that except to state the obvious, i.e., that work is reviewed for quality and safety reasons?  Mandsford 16:10, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sadly, there's not even a reason about how-to articles. So if you created how to weld safely, this article wouldn't be deleted. &mdash; Timneu22 · &#32; talk 16:13, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Delete - Essentially an unsourced howto essay. As the article author has had copyright violations in the past, I share the suspicions of others who suggest that this article is a copyvio. I also don't see how this is a notable topic; perhaps it would warrant a brief mention in the welding article, but not its own stand-alone article. P. D. Cook  Talk to me! 14:21, 17 June 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.