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. There is consensus here that the current article is in a very poor state, but also that there is potential for an article here. Therefore am closing this as keep but with my strong recommendation (not only recommendation, this is only my opinion) that anyone should reduce the article to a stub then we can start again at building up a better article. Davewild (talk) 20:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Playground surfacing (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log) • Afd statistics

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

This article appears to be nothing more than a semi-obvious dictionary definition and a whole lot of unsourced information that are, essentially, bullet points and a table about the different types of surfaces available. Could be spam for Fibar; many of the YouTube (!) links are to their videos, and the "slideshow" on the side of the article can be attributed to them. Possibly also a cleverly-velied how-to. Regardless the article as written is wholly unencyclopedic, possibly WP:OR and WP:SYN (such as the information about safety with citation to completely irrelevant YouTube videos), and fails WP:RS. Kinu ^t/_c 03:57, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as a soapbox piece and/or advertising. JIP | Talk 07:32, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I find numerous news stories going back to 1939. I find many descriptions in books. If current article has shortcomings, then the solution is editorial improvement rather than deletion. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ordinarily I would send an article like this to rescue, but sometimes an article has such egregious WP:OR/WP:SPAM issues that it's better to start over. It's hard to discern what, if anything, is of value and salvageable here, due to the tone and lack of legitimate sourcing. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:55, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The state of the article as written is largely irrelevant as it is our editing policy to improve poor articles, not delete them. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, but the same policy also states [f]ix problems if you can, flag or remove them if you can't. I saw nothing to satisfy the former action, so I opted to nominate this for the latter action. Instead of a vague policy-wielding argument, it would helpful to state what specific content in the actual article is sourceable and appropriate for an article on playground surfacing. Likewise, this article has been around for 16 months and has shown little improvement, and it is essentially borderline original research. One policy shouldn't be used to justify violation of another policy. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:10, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD is not an article improvement service. You are the one trying to make a case for a particular action here and you have failed to do so. If you require ideas on how to improve the article, please see Encyclopedia of educational research which contains detailed information about this topic. Colonel Warden (talk) 19:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• How about assuming good faith? I never said AfD was an article improvement service, but if the article can be improved reasonably, that would not be unwelcome. Your !vote implies that some of the content is salvageable, and I was merely asking you which content you think falls under that. I don't see it, but apparently you do. That information would be helpful, possibly, for anyone who might share the opinion that the article is salvageable and would want to attempt to improve the article before the AfD closes. That would be much more productive than providing me links to books on research, which is a borderline personal attack and wholly unnecessary. --Kinu ^t/_c 19:38, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and clean up. Nominal referencing suggests more coverage is available. Looks like it just needs some TLC (tender loving cleanup). Redfarmer (talk) 22:20, 4 November 2010 (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.