Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PVC decking

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The result was speedy keep: nomination withdrawn. Non-admin closure — Frankie (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PVC decking

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

Article relies on a single source, which seems to be primary, and also the general context of the article might not be notable for inclusion on Wikipedia. Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 16:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The source in the article is not a primary source, it's from Remodeling Magazine, a publication of Hanley Wood, which is a media company covering construction-related topics. The name "wood" and the triangular graphic in the company's logo (similar to a tree) may have misled the nominator to deduce this as a primary source, when in fact, it's a secondary source. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:12, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - The topic passes WP:GNG, and has received significant coverage in reliable third-party sources:

Zuckerman, David (May 28, 2009). "PVC Decking Still Popular". Remodeling Magazine. Retrieved May 26, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)
Verespej, Mike (March 21, 2012). "Decking makers hopeful in '12". Plastics News. Retrieved May 26, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
"Get a Stake in PVC Fencing". Plastics Technology Magazine. July 2000. Retrieved May 26, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

I've added these sources to the article. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand Ok, realiable sources appeared so i support the article. Still, it needs to be expanded to properly cover the topic. Remember that, when recerencing, if the publisher doesn't have page on WP, it doesn't need to be linked to an external page. Regards. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 17:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for revisiting the discussion. Feel free to withdraw the nomination, if you'd like. Northamerica1000^(talk) 17:51, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As improvements have been made to the article to meet the reliability guideline, among other, i withdraw the nomination. I'd like to thank user Northamerica1000 for all the contributions made on the article. --Hahc21 ^{[TALK][CONTRIBS]} 19:01, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note – This nomination has been withdrawn (see comment directly above). Northamerica1000^(talk) 19:10, 26 May 2012 (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.