Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pipe shelving Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pipe_shelving

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 merge to Shelf (storage). (non-admin closure) –Davey2010^Talk 00:18, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pipe shelving

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

Not specifically notable. Less than 300 google hits for "pipe Shelving" (if you follow the links rather than just take the initial number on the search - google does that). Nothing to distinguish it from "Shelves" noq (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shelf (storage). Not a notable topic. Pipe shelving does not have significant coverage as an independent topic of shelving. Anything specific about shelving made from pipe can be covered in the existing short article Shelf (storage). MB 04:06, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:13, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shelf (storage). Nothing wrong with the topic, but for practical reasons readers would be better served with a section in the other article. If someone is looking for a "how to" that is outside of WP. Otherwise there is very little to say about the topic. It would be good to put it where people looking for info on shelf alternatives would see it. Thoughtmonkey (talk) 02:52, 4 October 2016 (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.