Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Encasement

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 no consensus. This discussion attracted little attention, and I cannot say that a consensus to delete arose - only the nominator endorsed deletion. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 16:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Encasement

Encasement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

The page presents as fact numerous assertions that are unsupported by evidence or credible references. What puts the article beyond salvageability is the fact that it does little more than attempt to bolster the case for purchasing products from a particular company called Global Encasement, Inc (The 3rd reference in the reference list at the bottom of the page). Gogamma (talk) 11:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:54, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• The subject appears to be notable although the article has some issues. I suggest tagging it for cleanup. The pros and cons section for example seems... unbalanced. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• The single con in the cons section is not even a con. Also, that whole section was lifted from the commercial website I mentioned previously (Global Encasement, Inc).Gogamma (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• On the question of the TOPIC of "encasement", I believe it has been fabricated for commercial purposes. I believe what they refer to on the page as "encasement" is what is generally referred to in the industry as "encapsulation". There is a distinction made on the page between encasement and encapsulation, but again I believe it is a fabrication and I certainly believe that it is not generally used within the industry. By the way, Wikipedia does not seem to have a page yet on encapsulation, but perhaps we can address that after dealing with this page on so-called encasement.Gogamma (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buffbills7701 01:49, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

---

Ok, I've done a little research. I mentioned previously that I believed that the topic of encasement (as it appears on Wikipedia) had been fabricated for commercial purposes. Well, I checked the "Guidelines for the Evaluation and Control of Lead-Based Paint Hazards in Housing (2012 Edition)" published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development . I could find no use of the term. I searched pdf versions of chapters 12 and 13 and found that they contained no use of the term "encasement". Whilst the US Dept of HUD is not necessarily the definitive source, I am not aware of any better source. I am certainly not aware of any source apart form this Wikipedia page under question and the associated commercial website that contains any reference to the topic of encasement as outlined.Gogamma (talk) 10:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't exactly understand your comments. You are saying that there is no such thing as encasement? What is it called when toxic or dangerous substances are secured and left in place in a building or home rather than being removed? Candleabracadabra (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the topic of "encasement" is a fabrication. The usage of the term "encasement" as it appears on the Wikipedia Encasement page would appear to have been invented by the company which goes by the name Global Encasement, Inc (see the 3rd reference in the reference list at the bottom of the page). It would appear that the party responsible for setting up that company is also responsible for setting up the Wikipedia Encasement page.

You asked "What is it called when toxic or dangerous substances are secured and left in place in a building or home rather than being removed?" In the case that the dangerous substance is secured by way of a material that is stuck adhesively to it the term used is "encapsulation". In the case that the dangerous substance is secured by way of a material that is mechanically fastened to it the term used is "enclosure". Please see page 15 of chapter 12 of the reference I supplied earlier, <anofollow" class="external free">http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/healthy_homes/lbp/hudguidelines"></a>.

If you look at the Wikipedia Encasement page you will see both those terms listed under the heading "Abatement methods". You will also see the term "Encasement" listed. Consistent with my previous point about the Wikipedia Encasement page being a page established for commercial purposes you will also notice that in addition to introducing the term "encasement" it argues that encasement is a better way to abate lead paint than encapsulation. That view is not, however, held by those people active in the area of lead paint abatement. Gogamma (talk) 19:45, 16 January 2014 (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.