Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pinning (modelling)

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 for delete - and merge comments are various specific - to my mind at this stage = default keep. --VS ^talk 04:34, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pinning (modelling)[edit]

Wikipedia is not a guide. All sources are within the context of the how-to section, otherwise this is a dictionary definition about a nonnotable term. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mostly per nom. This article has no place in an encyclopedia. It might be appropriate to merge it into another article, but the only information on the topic is how to do it, and as said by the nominator, "Wikipedia is not a guide". Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 01:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC) Merge The article is now notable, but there is hardly enough information to give it its own article. It would be better as a section in a larger article, some of which users mentioned below. Parent5446^{(Murder me for my actions)} 21:27, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
comment/question - wouldn't this also be an Engineering term ? Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are contained in seperate artices: Pinning. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then it should be Merged into a Engineering related Article (specifically Butt_joint#Dowel_Reinforced_Butt_Joint). Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 17:51, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is specifically about pinning models, not the enginerring term. If any merging is to be done, I'd have thought miniature conversion or scale model would be the place to put it.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not as I see it. It is about a construction technique, one already described in the afore mentioned Article. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 07:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at that article - it seemed to be talking specifically about a woodworking term. -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - it's hardly a non-notable term; almost every publication that discusses wargames modelling will mention this term at some point, especially if they are discussing conversions. I shall try to work on the article to improve it.-- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 09:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 1. Wikipedia is not a how-to guide. 2. A dictionary definition belongs at Wiktionary. Suggesting that there is a cultural history or effect on history of putting little pins in a model is a bit far-fetched. Utgard Loki (talk) 13:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Noted. I've removed the "How to" section, and added some more sourced text. I imagine the article will only ever be a stub, but stubs need love too! :-) -- JediLofty ^{User ¦ Talk} 17:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with scale model page. —Qit el-Remel (talk) 17:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree w/ Cumulus Clouds (talk · contribs) and Parent5446 (talk · contribs). Article does not assert notability or show coverage/significant discussion in multiple secondary WP:RS/WP:V sources. Cirt (talk) 18:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I was contacted on my talk page by JediLofty (talk · contribs) to revisit my comment at this AfD, but I have to say it is still "Delete". I also agree with Utgard Loki (talk · contribs). Perhaps if more significant coverage/discussion was shown in a good deal more secondary sources that satisfy WP:RS/WP:V, but that has not been shown in the article, or asserted here. Cirt (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with miniature conversion. --78.16.182.8 (talk) 20:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable term. Not everything consrtuction related it deletable under WP:NOT#HOWTO. --brew crewer (yada, yada) 21:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge too trivial by itself to be worth an article.DGG (talk) 15:16, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge But keep disambig/redirect. It is a conceivable search term re: models. MBisanz ^talk 01:45, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've not read the above very closely, but editors who vote merge should specify which destination page they recommend, as there seems to be more than one choice here. --PeaceNT (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2008 (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.