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 keep. Consensus here is that more sourcing is required but there's enough at present for the article to meet the requirements of the general notability guideline, and that the article covers a more generic term as opposed to a specific product from a company, or at least that it could do so. (non-admin closure) Steven Zhang ^{The clock is ticking....} 00:38, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Heat-shrinkable sleeve (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Contested PROD of a product. Article creator (who seems to have a conflict of interest as a representative of the company who makes the product) put the following on my talk page:

Dear Sir,

You proposed to delete the page for heat-shrinkable sleeves. Please confirm why. The technology is in wide use for pipeline construction (corrosion protection) for the past 40 years. There are also many national and international standards that reference the technology and many multi-national oil and gas companies that have specifications that include the technology.

Thank you, Bob Buchanan Canusa-CPS

The author has since made good faith efforts to add in sources, but they include things like registration info of the product and articles that do not mention the subject.

The page appears to contain information that is indeed verifiable such as the manufacturer's webpage and articles describing the individual components (but not Heat-shrinkable sleeve), but there are no sources that provide evidence of notability. After a search, I was able to find this article describing the 45th anniversary of Canusa, the company creating the product. Although heat-shrink sleeves are mentioned several times, they are not discussed in-depth in the article. All in all, does not seem to comply with WP:GNG due to lack of third-party references and WP:PRODUCT as the company itself is not notable. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:11, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} 16:48, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There are good sources, like here: [Metallurgy and Corrosion Control in Oil and Gas Production By Robert Heidersbach, Bob Heidersbach] --DeVerm (talk) 17:52, 18 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• Merge with heat-shrink tubing and make that article more generic. This topic is broader than just the one-company-centric topic related to pipelines. The concept is identical, the technology is common and in wide use. This is just another application. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• This sounds logical but if you read both articles it becomes clear that these technologies are so different from each other that merging them would kill both articles and it becomes a mess that no reader will understand. It's just too different to put together imho --DeVerm (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2011 (UTC).[reply]
• It may not be good idea to merge them with each other. The producing processes of heat shrink tubing and heat shrinkable sleeve are similar, but they have many difference in testing standards, applications and etc. Usually, heat shrink tubing is thin wall tubing and it focus on it's electrical properties; while, here, when people talking heat shrinkable sleeve, it is usually relate to its property related to anti-corrosion.There is no particular reference here, practically, most manufactuers of heat shrink products produce both of these products and divide them by above principle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heat Shrink China (talk • contribs) 00:53, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The article creator has been blocked by Orangemike due to their promotional username and will not be participating using that username. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 18:07, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this appears to a suitable generic name for an important class of products, not the trade name of a single company, and I agree with DeVerm that there is sufficient difference from heat-shrink tubing, which is a connector not a coating, to justify the two articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - significant generic product. Needs sourcing but that is an editorial matter. I have removed promotional external links to the (supposed) creator's company. Bridgeplayer (talk) 00:18, 26 July 2011 (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.