Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sprayed in place pipe

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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:21, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sprayed in place pipe

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

Newly created article that appears to be sourced to one archived online source. Accuracy questioned, by editor who keeps removing content. Per WP:WEB article may not meet Wikipedia's notability standards. Creator has been blocked indef. — Maile (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and improve The history of this article is assuredly problematic. The original author had registered a company username, and was blocked. Said user then requested, and was granted a name change, but the block does not appear to have been lifted. Said user then created a new account (see this discussion) to repair the mistake made when he added information about the CIPP technology rather than the SIPP technology that this article was meant to describe. Although the author's sole source is a poor one (and perhaps not even available), there are many sources to be found about this technology, and I believe it merits inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:03, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:35, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, —MRD2014 ^{Talk • Edits • Help!} 01:27, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Sprayed in place is another in a list of rehab technologies already described in Trenchless technology. Add sprayed to that list, then convert this article to a Redirect. Rhadow (talk) 13:17, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve per WikiDan61 Erin93 (talk) 16:25, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I noticed WikiDan61 promised to work on the article. Shankrupss professed a desire to work on it. It's counterproductive when editors propose solutions without dates, so articles just hang around forever with no resolution. Rhadow (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment No, you noticed that I said the article could improve with work. I did not promise to be the one to do that work. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:42, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There would appear to be some potentially useful sources in academic journals listed here. 86.17.222.157 (talk) 12:53, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Notice the IP's comment above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J 947^{^{^{(c) (m)}}} 20:43, 17 August 2017 (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.