Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brick deterioration
- 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. Sandstein 14:00, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
- Brick deterioration (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
WP:NOTHOWTO GMGtalk 00:48, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Not a fit Wikipedia subject. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:05, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Delete- This belongs on a home improvement site, not here. I can picture Bob Vila doing a segment on this.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- Comment I'm kinda mixed on this, would you guys be mollified if the whole "To fix this.." parts were taken out? I feel the rest of the content has a home somewhere. And brick already seems bloated. Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 03:57, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- I mean, if you take out all the instructional content, and take out all the content that already has a main article, I'm not entirely sure what you'd be left with, but it doesn't look like very much more than a few lines. As to Brick, yes, it's terribly bloated, but on the order of half or more of that article could probably be rightfully removed as original research, or rightfully spun off into a list of types of bricks. The same goes for some of the main articles on these individual sections. Damp (structural) has sported a split template for more than a year, and about half the article is about rising damp, which could probably be spun off into a stand alone article all its own.
- Unfortunately, this is a pretty systemic problem when you get to some of our most generic (and likely most viewed) articles. But I don't think this article really solves any of that. At best, if rewritten to be encyclopedic, and to represent a worldwide perspective (which it's not totally clear it does), it seems like this would be an unnecessary fork for an article that itself needs fundamentally rewritten, rather than forked. GMGtalk 13:27, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
- keep an encyclopedic topic, which is mostly about what can go wrong. Not a how to fix it. 21:56, 14 December 2017 (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.