Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Water damage restoration

Water damage restoration

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

The article's topic is probably notable, but its entire current content is focussed on promoting 1 specific organization's (IICRC) views, standards and general expertise. It is essentially one huge WP:COATRACK, implying that "water damage restoration" and "IICRC S500" are identical topics. Aside from WP:COATRACK the article lacks independent sources, and violates WP:NOTGUIDE and WP:NPOV in most sections. This seems like a textbook example for WP:TNT. GermanJoe (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is not a coatrack because the IICRC material is quite relevant to the topic. If there's more to be said, then this is a matter of expansion and improvement per our editing policy. WP:TNT is not policy; it's disruption. Andrew D. (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure This article seems to be mostly copied from the IICRC site. However the topic is certainly notable and important. Kitfoxxe (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- On top of these problems (thanks for catching the possible copyvios), "Classifications" and "Categorization" are largely redundant with water damage - with slightly better and more diverse sourcing in the other article. Assuming IICRC S500 is a de-facto standard (should have a reliable source though for verification), we could simply mention the standard in a brief paragraph in the main article and redirect this one. GermanJoe (talk) 14:47, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge S500 standard to the restoration section of the water damage article for reasons as explained by GermanJoe. DeVerm (talk) 23:46, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]