Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stab-Lok

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. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Stab-Lok

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

WP:GNG? Müdigkeit (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was nominated here only 4 mins after creation. I have added a first reference. I am unconvinced that the product is notable, but it does no harm to use maintenance tags to point out what it is lacking in terms of evidence of notability, helping a relatively sporadic editor, rather than move straight to AfD. AllyD (talk) 21:37, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are probably right.--Müdigkeit (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. Let's not pull the trigger so fast. VMS Mosaic (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this article[1] about problems with this particular type of circuit breaker. I realize that's not sufficient for an article, and the current article is unacceptable and fails GNG, this suggests that the article may be rescuable as other sources may be out there. Coretheapple (talk) 17:06, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep I see that the article already has a source indicating problems with this type of circuit breaker. Therefore, given that there are multiple independent secondary sources with the above source added, I think that the article passes GNG, but only if the notability is tied directly to the hazards presented by this circuit breaker. The article will require a rewrite to turn it from an advertisement into a proper article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:12, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:39, 7 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Northamerica1000^(talk) 05:40, 7 December 2013 (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.