Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joint (building)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Speedy keep per WP:SNOW. BorgQueen (talk) 12:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Joint (building)

Joint (building) (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) (delete) – (View log)

Delete. I do not believe this is really serving any purpose as a Wikipedia article as this resource is not meant to be a HOW-TO guide, but perhaps I am wrong. Maybe it can be fixed. Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) 16:17, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

  • Keep Article needs some clean-up, but the topic of the article is entirely valid. I see no reason to delete it, when some general copyediting is all this one needs. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. With the last tag Coccyx Bloccyx (talk) said that it was not referenced. That is clearly false as there is no shortage of outside references, including a parallel treatise on the subject from Underwriters Laboratories. When questioned about this, Coccyx Bloccyx simply removed all that text from his talk page instead answering. The page is hardly a "how-to-guide", as instructions of that nature would be located in specifications and drawings that vary from one construction project to another. --Achim (talk) 17:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
May I please draw some attention to the latest changes to the article, during the deletion process on this page, by the nominator, which removed a very important technical aspect, that of penetrants going through joints, which is a significant problem with known solutions, under the guise of "pairing it down" but in fact reducing its substance for no recognisable gain. --Achim (talk) 02:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
The nom moved that content out of a caption box and to the top of the article, improperly above the introduction. I removed that content and just now restored it to the caption box. It probably doesn't belong in that box as it's an entire paragraph. --Oakshade (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the rescue you performed. I only saw that after you fixed it. What I was more concerned about is the removal of pix that clearly show the significant problem and solutions to what happens when mechanical and electrical services penetrate joints required to have a fire-resistance rating. He chose to just remove that and I really don't see why one would do that, unless one were in the business with a highly covalent and combustible sealant to sell, which would autoignite upon contact with hot metallic penetrants. But the nominator does not appear to have enough knowledge of the topic for that. This whole thing is really weird. I tried to discuss the matter with the nominator but he just refused and kept repeating arguments previously defeated by facts. It's an odd topic to argue over, all cut and dry like that. --Achim (talk) 22:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Speedy Keep there is absolutley no lack of coverage. Recommend this is closed as a speedy keep. The article has numerous references within the page itself. Dustitalk to me 17:14, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - article could certainly be improved, but it is a real term with real information and real sources to back it up. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 17:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep, valid topic for an article. It has references. It is very far from being a manual. Sorry, I just don't see what the objection is here. --Dhartung | Talk 18:44, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. It has references. It's a notable topic, in that it's been written about in reliable sources. It does not, contra the nominator, tell you how to make one. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Quite a notable topic. Antelantalk 20:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep - Building joints are very basic structure components. Very encyclopedic. --Oakshade (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep because it's a pretty basic construction topic. As an aside, the nominator apparently doesn't want to discuss the topic, as shown by this edit removing discussion from his user talk page, so I'm suspecting this might be a WP:POINT nomination. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 04:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep Seems like a notable and reasonably covered topic. A bit concerned about the nominator's conduct too. Maxamegalon2000 05:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep. Highly important aspect in engineering. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Keep per Sjakkalle; this is a factor in engineering; the article may need picked through to see what's been changed during the AfD; some may need reverted. I think it's at a WP:SNOW point by now. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:13, 15 April 2008 (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.