Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elastic coupling
- 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 Geislinger coupling. Arbitrarily0 (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Elastic coupling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Hopelessly confused article. This used to be a poorly-named and poorly-translated(?) article on the all-metal Geislinger coupling. It's now a vague duplication of elastomeric gear and Oldham couplings. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:13, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Coupling. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 14:06, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Which parts are accurate enough to merge? The problem now is that the article is a partial duplicate of two different articles, and the two strands are intermingled so that there's no clear statement that could be extracted for a useful merge. Anything this article says that could be used within coupling is already within coupling. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Geislinger coupling. Sorry, I didn't review Geislinger coupling. Right, no need to merge because info is already there. In fact, the 2 articles are clearly the same, so IMHO, this should have been redirected without the AfD process. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 15:14, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
- Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Alpha_Quadrant (talk) 18:40, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Redirect to Geislinger coupling per P199. Buggie111 (talk) 09:39, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is to be redirected, I'd suggest Coupling as the target. Geislinger couplings are weird and quite specialised, most elastic couplings are the simpler elastomers instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- True, but the info of this article matches the content of Geislinger coupling much closer. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 22:31, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- If this is to be redirected, I'd suggest Coupling as the target. Geislinger couplings are weird and quite specialised, most elastic couplings are the simpler elastomers instead. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:00, 24 December 2011 (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.