Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Weld neck flange

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 delete as a copyright violation. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 06:40, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Weld neck flange[edit]

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

Article seemingly created for the purpose of spamming a company. Unsourced, no indication of notability of the subject given. Probably could be fully covered under the existing article Flange. Safiel (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability established by [1] and [2]. Flange is a WP:SUMMARY so merging there is probably not a good idea. Also I don't see a promotional angle here. ~KvnG 13:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, j⚛e decker ^talk 00:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar ♔ 03:18, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Sources found by KvnG do establish notability. I also agree that the article itself does not seem promotional.--Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:02, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable and the nomination seems to be proposing merger not deletion. Andrew (talk) 11:23, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as copyright violations. Indeed this is a notable subject but big chunks of the content appears to be close paraphrasing of published sources and there is not a clean version to revert to. Some examples:

The section 'Consumption Countries' is an adaptation from the 2nd and 3rd paras of here.
The first two sentences of 'Uses of Weld Neck Flange' come from here.
The first two sentences of the 2nd para of the lead from here.
Several other sentences from the lead have come from here.

Some parts of the text may be salvageable but, on further research, I am not able to say with confidence what bits may be original content. Consequently, deletion and a fresh start seems the only practical way forward. The Whispering Wind (talk) 22:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like these issues may have already been considered previously for this article. ~KvnG 05:52, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What happened was that the page was G12 tagged but the creator then blanked the page so it was G7 deleted obviating the need to consider the copyvio situation. The article was reintroduced four days later. This is, in any case, not a clear G12 situation because what you have is close paraphrasing from a number of sources stitched together to synthasise an article. For that reason I have not speedy tagged it because it merits some discussion. If there is worthwhile text that is not copyvio then it could be edited down but there is nothing that I am confident about. The views expressed thus far are that the subject is notable. Therefore, if deleted, that will clear the copyvio material from the history, I am happy to undertake to write a very short, sourced stub. The Whispering Wind (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your assessment of the current article content. What's the best way to proceed? Edit back to a stub now? Wait for the AfD to close? I generally prefer to improve flawed articles rather than delete but maybe a different approach is required when there's a potential copyvio. ~KvnG 06:03, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We are on the second relist now so this AFD can be closed at any time by an admin. The problem with stubbing is that the copyvio material remains in the history and could be reverted to at any time. My view is that we need to be rigorous with copvio because it has the potential to seriously damage Wikipedia's reputation. I share your reluctance to delete when improvement is possible but in this case deletion followed by a fresh start seems the cleanest way forward. The Whispering Wind (talk) 14:23, 12 October 2014 (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.