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.. CitiCat ^♫ 16:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welding Joints (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

The article simply lists 3 ways to weld metal, and how to do it. It appears to be some sort of instruction manual, something Wikipedia is not. Kylohk 00:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep. If it had sources, I might like it better. wikipediatrix 01:32, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Welding#Geometry, which covers the same material. Argyriou (talk) 02:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete needs sources. Oysterguitarist 02:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Definitely needs sources, and rewritten as an encyclopedic article instead of a HOWTO, but the subject itself is definitely notable --Longing.... 08:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Welding: I have to agree with Argyriou - this material would best fit in the welding article. It's definitely notable, but not notable enough to stand on its own in my exceedingly humble opinion. :-) Sidatio 17:06, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Welding is already a featured article, so I'm not sure what Welding Joints provides that Welding#Geometry doesn't. If there's something more to be said in the main article that clarifies the selection process for what kind of joints are used, it should probably be written in a more encyclopedic tone than Welding Joints provides. I'm going to go with delete. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:34, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The Welding article doesn't really compare the different types of welding joints, and in the interest of brevity it's probably best that way. With a bit of expansion, Welding Joints could provide much more thorough and useful information. A simple Google search will reveal some much more in-depth reading. --XDanielx 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per WP:DP. "Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion." If "[a]ll attempts to find reliable sources in which article information can be verified have failed", then a deletion may be justified; but welding joints is a rudimentary (yet important) concept in engineering and finding relevant credible sources is like finding bread in a bread store. --XDanielx 22:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment But what important concepts does it reveal in engineering? Other than being different ways to attach metals to each other? Perhaps a merge to Welding would be a good idea.--Kylohk 00:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Response - You said it perfectly fine yourself - the article describes different ways in which metals may be attached, and given that this topic individually affects the strength and resource efficiency of billions of metal-based artifacts in everyday use, I think that it is an important concept. It could be merged, but I think a thorough discussion of the subject would be rather long for the main welding article. --XDanielx 09:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Welding, for the same reasons as above.--Fabrictramp 16:10, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this is a scrappy excuse of an article, but it can be improved with sections on history (WJ's that have fallen out of use, for instance) and on pro's and cons of different Joints. Welding is already 42k, it doesn't need more adding to it. Totnesmartin 11:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Welding per Argyriou -- Magioladitis 09:37, 8 August 2007 (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.