Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ductal

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 redirect to Lafarge (company). More specifically: Consensus that Ductal is not, by itself, notable, there's some support for a redirect, any merging that is attempted can be considered as an editorial question at the page on Lafarge. joe decker ^talk 15:51, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ductal

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

Questionably notable and improvable commercial product? as the best I found was this, this, this, this and this. At best, if this product is notable but simply best known through the brand name, it may be salvageable but I'm not entirely sure about that. Pinging the only still active interested user Mean as custard. SwisterTwister talk 06:10, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 06:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 30 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect: to Lafarge (company) per WP:PRODUCT. Vrac (talk) 17:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 05:42, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge - Does not appear to meet stand-alone notability requirements. Not sure the merge would be successful but happy to let someone take a crack at it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor ^Talk! 04:40, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with nom and above editor that it doesn't have the in-depth coverage necessary to warrant a stand-alone article. Have no problem with a redirect. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:07, 22 November 2015 (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.