Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Care and maintenance of pianos

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 and move to piano maintenance. Flowerparty^☀ 00:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Care and maintenance of pianos[edit]

Wikipedia is not a manual. OboeCrack (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete (missing step 3). It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Agreed. Delete Ω (talk) 10:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)~~[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 12:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wp:NOTHOWTO sums up my thoughts perfectly. DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 12:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems less like a how-to than a list of maintenance/aging issues for pianos, which seems a reasonable breakout of the main article to me. JJL (talk) 13:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per JJL. SpikeJones (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on! I only really glanced at the page earlier (my bad). After seeing what JJL said and taking a second look I see that this page is a breakout from the main Piano page (be sure to look at the page history and the talk pages). That being the case, the result here should undoubtedly be Keep. That being said, this page needs attention. The fact that it needs attention is a reason to start copy editing it, not a reason to delete it, though. Ω (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'd also suggest a move to Piano maintenance; it's the title alone that makes this look like a deletion target. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I, for one, agree. (for whatever that's worth...) Ω (talk) 14:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I too had issues with the title but struggled for a good suggestion. This one works for me! JJL (talk) 15:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was in a bit of a foul mood yesterday, and really only glanced at the article. Now that I have, I agree with Smerdis. (Hence my comment yesterday being struck out.) DitzyNizzy (aka Jess)|(talk to me)|(What I've done) 09:24, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMANUAL. Yoninah (talk) 20:24, 23 June 2009 (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.