Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyclone dust collector

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 Cyclonic separation. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:27, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cyclone dust collector

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

delete (nominator) -- Article content is either a duplicate of Cyclonic separation‎, or just plain wrong (See Talk:Cyclonic separation‎). There is no content that needs merging as, due to the short length of this article, the other article covers all the points here User A1 (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Will nominators please not pre-empt AfDs and remove articles while the AfD is still open. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its been over a week, the AFD period has expired, and no-one has done anything. I was surprised anyone noticed. User A1 (talk) 16:24, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Then it's time that an uninvolved admin closed the AfD (Presumably as "No consensus", in this case), or else re-listed it for longer. Either way though, neither of us (as involved editors) should close it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of the problem is that this isn't a correctly formed AfD. Apart from the missing header on the AfD article here, it was never linked from the AfD index pages. No wonder it has never been acted upon. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ Delete It's a poor article and needs writing (there's little there to start with). However cyclonic dust collectors are an important commercial market and there seems to be enough distinction between the theory (Cyclonic separation) and instances of its application (Collectors) to justify two separate articles. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would say, I would not object to someone writing a new article, for sure, but the content here is not worth keeping. User A1 (talk) 17:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Change to delete, per User A1. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Andy Dingley (talk) 18:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted with correct header Andy Dingley (talk) 18:30, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Merge with cyclonic separation to the extent that there's anything worth keeping. If at some point there is enough specific content within cyclonic separation to justify a separate Cyclone dust collector article, it can be re-created. --Macrakis (talk) 20:54, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm against merging this, on the grounds that if the article did have any content worth preserving then we'd be better preserving it in situ.

My view is shifting towards delete anyway (Unless someone gets editing this week). There's just nothing here worth saving: a clean slate would be simpler. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplicate (and a badly written one at that) of the existing topic Cyclonic_separation. Duplicate image, poorly paraphrased intro paragraph. Burn it. Down. Scatter the ashes. Mtiffany71 (talk) 22:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There's still scope for a separate article (just not this one). Separation is a theoretical principle, dust collectors are workshop equipment in a much narrower scope. There is still justification for an article here (and slaying the static electricity dust explosion canard would be a good section within that). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 11:52, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cyclonic separation‎. Page title is a valid search term; no reason for deletion. --Lambiam 01:08, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge to Cyclonic separation‎ per Macrakis above. Keristrasza (talk) 10:12, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, if anyone wants to recreate a better article, they should just go ahead and be bold, but this should go. --Nuujinn (talk) 13:06, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect. This should be a no-brainer, in fact, this could have been done without debate. Clearly the same thing! This article is not written as well as Cyclonic separation, so there may not be much to merge. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 16:10, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect I echo P199 in full, and I think a trout is in order for A1 for deleting an article he put up for AfD. Sven Manguard _Talk 01:24, 4 October 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.