Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal arm springs

:{{la|Internal arm springs}} ([{{fullurl:Internal arm springs|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Internal arm springs}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

Article has sat for a month without substantial improvement in spite of tagging. Though a merger has been proposed (and the merger itself isn't a bad idea), the article is unsourced and no action has been taken on either improvement or merging in over three weeks. Additionally, the initial entry was CSD-ed (but declined). Tyrenon (talk) 15:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

• Writing the encyclopaedia is not Somebody Else's Problem. In accordance with Wikipedia:Deletion policy, Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#Before nominating an article for deletion, please state what you did to find sources. "No action has been taken" translates to "I, Tyrenon, took no action.", remember. We don't delete articles for not being worked on, or for having no citations. We delete them for being unverifiable, which requires work on your part to determine. Uncle G (talk) 22:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
• No, it translates into there being absolutely no action taken per the log. The article may make sense in the context of awnings, where the proposed merger would put it, but that seems to be a long-discarded idea as it hasn't even been touched. I'm fine with a merger, but the article makes no sense as a standalone.

::Now, as to sources, the search term "internal arm spring" awning (singular) yields nothing on Google while "internal arm springs" awning (plural) yields 7 hits (one of which is the Wikipedia article). Stripping away the quotes generates a lot more hits, but also suggests that the term as used in the article title simply is not used in more than a bare handful of cases.

::More to the point in this case, every other edit by the editor who made this article was taken out for vandalism. The fact that the term is only used by a handful of companies plus this suggests that the term is a promotional term used by a single company with several distributors (five of the six non-wiki hits use the phrase 'cold-wound internal arm springs'). Elsewhere, the edits were at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Awning&action=history one point stated to be explicitly only applicable to one company, not the industry as a whole.

::In sum, the article uses a rarely-used term (at least in the context used) to describe something. This stinks of an attempt at a promotional insert in Wikipedia (particularly in light of the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Awning_Guru other issues surrounding the editor). As the use of the term can be all but verified as not being used beyond a single company to describe their product, rather than as a generic term, either the article needs to be retitled and reworked or it needs to be deleted with salvageable content transferred to the overall article on awnings. And as this seems to be a service provided by one company with only a few distributors and no press coverage, I'd also cite WP:N on top of everything else as to why this should go.Tyrenon (talk) 03:02, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

• Delete I did some Googling and confirm that the thing exists as described in the 94-word article. However, the topic is not notable. It's just one way an awning can work (see WP:NOTMANUAL). Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with Johnuniq's comments...I suspect this may be something that, if it is a topic in and of itself, it probably has other names and this is probably not the most common one. Since there's almost no content anyway, I see no reason to keep it. Cazort (talk) 22:12, 9 June 2009 (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.