Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stain

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 (non-admin closure), as per consensus. Looks like this Stain is not coming out. Ecoleetage (talk) 00:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stain

It is partially nonsense. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 01:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD nomination was incomplete. It is listed now. DumbBOT (talk) 13:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not the world's greatest article, but not terrible either. Nothing here is nonsense, either patent or otherwise. AlexTiefling (talk) 14:03, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the previous editor has told "not a great article" but definately has something and can be improved rather than being deleted. Kalivd (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not so much nonsense as pointless. Especially the included list of "Substances that may create stains" is a joke. There's a fine definition of stain on Wikionary[1], and this article appears to ignore WP:OR and WP:NOT completely. ~~SIS~~ 14:41, 3 October 2008 (UTC) Abstain. No pun intended. ~~SIS~~ 22:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Ugh. I'm sure the topic should stay, but that's not much of an article. Surely someone has written a book on stains at some point, right? Maybe something from Textile engineering? UltraExactZZ ^Claims~ Evidence 14:48, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Important topic, I added some of the dozens of current books as general references; there are historical ones also. . But probably the title should be "Stain Removal" DGG (talk) 16:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I've made a stab at rewriting the article, cleaning out the stuff that doesn't make sense or is uncyclopedic, and trying to find some real sourcing. -- Logical Premise^Ergo? 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is certainly an improvement over the article as it existed when nominated, which included a list of things that coulc cause stains, things that could be stained, and things that removed stains. As the article (in both versions) pointed out, there are purposes for the "discoloration that distinguishes itself from the material on which it is found". Mandsford (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Request - The article has been rewritten, everybody votes keep except me, and I still think "Stain? You might as well have an article on Kitchen Smells. What's going on here?" In other words, I get the feeling I'm completely missing a point. If somebody would be so kind to explain on my Talk page how 'Stain' can be an encyclopedic entry, I'd be most obliged. I'm not being cynical here, I really don't understand. All I can think is WP:NOT. What am I missing? Genuinely puzzled, ~~SIS~~ 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an article about unintentional discoloration of surfaces or materials by exposure to colorants or chemicals. There is an article Wood stain about stains intentionally applied to wood, and there is an article about Staining used in bio labs, like Gram staining , which by-the-way has a thorough "how-to" section, and which needs it, to explain what gram staining is. An article on unintentional stains suggests a section on stain removal, which runs the risk of being the dreaded "how-to" of useful information which Wikipedia forbids for some reason. Hundreds of books exist about stains and their removal [2] , and hundreds more books discuss particular types of unintentional stains [3] , [4] , satisfying notability. Edison (talk) 22:13, 3 October 2008 (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.