Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vacuum Excavation

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. -- Cirt (talk) 00:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vacuum Excavation[edit]

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

Doesn't seem encyclopedic; sounds like the results of a study. Access Denied 19:27, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now and improve - I think there could be an article on this subject, even though it is somewhat obscure and specialized topic, there are plenty of references on it. (see for instance [1]) HOwever, several parts of this are probably copyright violations and appear to be copy and pasted from other websites. I removed one major copy/paste, but the rest needs a complete rewrite. Unfortunately, I don't have the time for such a task. However, I don't think it warrants deletion on the basis of being poorly written, it just needs to be fixed up a lot. And seeing that it was created only a few hours ago, this AfD seems somewhat premature, since not enough time has elapsed for potential improvement. Danski14^(talk) 22:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:00, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If the information is correct then this is a notable topic. Article should be rewritten to avoid copyright problems and cite sources. Jaque Hammer (talk) 12:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:56, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Article passes WP:N and WP:RS and REALLY needs to be wikified. - Pmedema (talk) 02:23, 23 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.