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.
Very short article with unclear notability and without the third party sources. No improvement since previous Afd four years ago. Also it was said during the previous Afd that there are many non-trivial hits by Google books, it is still questionable if these hits satisfy
WP:RS and
WP:GNG. As an alternative to deletion, it could be redirect to
Asphalt and mention it there.
Beagel (
talk)
17:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. The first book does not qualify as independent source as it is done by Shell Bitumen. The second source mentions the name cariphalte only six times, although it has more than 400 pages. Cariphalte is not the amin topic of this book and it is clearly not a significant coverage. The third source mention it only in the 8th chapter, which is written by an employee of Shell Bitumen, so it is not an independent source. The fourth source is written and published by Shell, so, again, it s not an independent source. So, these sources are not sufficient to satisfy
WP:GNG but probably are enough for merging it into
Asphalt.
Beagel (
talk)
18:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, even if I disagree with the assessment of the second book source (
WP:GNG does not require the topic to be the main source topic, and the coverage is significant enough to be used as a RS), it is true that other sources seem not to be independent. However I'd say the source in the third book, while written by a Shell employee, is within an overall independent book, so it could half-qualify. In any case I'd rather be lenient and keep the article; otherwise merge. --
cyclopiaspeak!14:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.
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.
Very short article with unclear notability and without the third party sources. No improvement since previous Afd four years ago. Also it was said during the previous Afd that there are many non-trivial hits by Google books, it is still questionable if these hits satisfy
WP:RS and
WP:GNG. As an alternative to deletion, it could be redirect to
Asphalt and mention it there.
Beagel (
talk)
17:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)reply
Comment. The first book does not qualify as independent source as it is done by Shell Bitumen. The second source mentions the name cariphalte only six times, although it has more than 400 pages. Cariphalte is not the amin topic of this book and it is clearly not a significant coverage. The third source mention it only in the 8th chapter, which is written by an employee of Shell Bitumen, so it is not an independent source. The fourth source is written and published by Shell, so, again, it s not an independent source. So, these sources are not sufficient to satisfy
WP:GNG but probably are enough for merging it into
Asphalt.
Beagel (
talk)
18:43, 1 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, even if I disagree with the assessment of the second book source (
WP:GNG does not require the topic to be the main source topic, and the coverage is significant enough to be used as a RS), it is true that other sources seem not to be independent. However I'd say the source in the third book, while written by a Shell employee, is within an overall independent book, so it could half-qualify. In any case I'd rather be lenient and keep the article; otherwise merge. --
cyclopiaspeak!14:58, 3 April 2014 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
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.