Talk:Grounding kit
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Grounding kit article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Nomination for Deletion
edit- Initial Edit Summary
- Single author composed entire article in two entries.
- User:Dutchsandman does not have a page currently
- There are only 20+ entries since 2009 when it was created, none of which contest, verify or otherwise confirm value of article
- This article is sole-referenced from what appears to be 3 versions of an industry specific manual
- This article reads like a parts listing and installation manual
- The intro starts off with "...can be described as a kind of..." Is it or isn't it?
- It later states the subject of this apparently Wwikipedia quality article is composed of "two main components, a clamp and a cable". That cinched it for me.... or should I Google "a clamp and a cable" to verify it?
- Talk Page - Does not exist, there has never been any discussion of this page
- Page Log - ?
- WhatLinksHere
- 5 other articles
Having passed most if not all criteria for a Speedy Deletion, I applied {db-g11} Promotional/Spam, noting it is "assigning a name akin to a trademark to one of many products that could be called the specific name "grounding kit".... which was quickly removed.
A Google search of "grounding kit" revealed 10 pages, all claiming to be a "grounding kit", none looked like the topic of the article, and all appeared completely different. As I said, trying to gain notoriety for specific product by "trademarking" a very common name (word combination). I'm not arguing the product, or class of product does not exist... I saying it is not wikipedia worthy.
Drag this out into a AfD discussion, or will Speedy Deletion be sufficient? Borealdreams (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
- It's strikingly obvious this does not promote any specific company or marketed named product, and this G11 would not apply in a million years. I don't even see a possibility for AFD, although you could try it. Although I personally recommend that every new article be assigned to a project via its talkpage, the original absence of one does not make the article less notable. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 00:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)