Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antique Ceramics

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 redirect to Ceramics. Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Antique Ceramics[edit]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Majority of article is a "how-to" guide to the care of these objects, and remainder of the article is not worth salvaging. Delete" per WP:NOT. WuhWuzDat 14:50, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Unsourced original essay as it sits. I'd advocate merger of some information to Ceramic, assuming that the care section can be sourced out. Carrite (talk) 15:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've put in a link to the source of this information plus I have re-written it to seem more factual and less like a guide. How do you think it looks now? --Joecolly (talk) 08:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It still has sourcing issues, but improving. I have no strong opinion one way or the other about inclusion. Carrite (talk) 21:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget 01:21, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Wifione _.......^{Leave a message} 15:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Ceramic. I see only one reference, and whatever is of value here can be moved. --Nuujinn (talk) 15:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Half of it is a how-to guide and half of it is already covered by Ceramics. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 16:36, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
merge selectively to Ceramics--a section on practical matters is not inappropriate in a comprehensive article. DGG ( talk ) 21:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.