Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wooden sieves

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 Sieve. J04n(talk page) 11:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wooden sieves

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

This article belongs in Wiktionary, if that. Andrew³²⁷ 07:06, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Two books were published in the 1950s on the wooden sieve. The article should be renamed to the singular form. Many other books discuss the wooden sieve and its use in various fields including agriculture and archaeology. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's always nice to meet another series 32x editor. Andrew³²⁷ 08:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we are a rare breed, Andrew. And this AfD proves that we are not acting in concert, but are independent thinkers. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Wikipedia is an ongoing learning process. If I were always right, I wouldn't need to build consensus. Andrew³²⁷ 22:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article doesn't explain what's special about wooden sieves or what they're used for. ("Sampling" what?) It could easily be merged into the main article sieve which is itself weak, but there's not really information to merge other than the fact that wooden sieves are made of wood, or sometimes wood and wicker or wood and metal or wood and plastic. Basically what I'm saying is that this article offers nothing of value to Wikipedia. --Colapeninsula (talk) 11:17, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The delete arguments are apparently that the article needs expansion, so it should be expanded. I note even the existing article explains the question asked just above, why the material is important. DGG (at NYPL) 21:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (NYPL) (talk • contribs)

Why do we need a separate article from sieve? You say the material is important, but the article indicates the material is actually highly variable. --Colapeninsula (talk) 14:38, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sieve. If it ever does get expanded to the point where a standalone article is justified and better for our readers than being merged then it can go back but that seems unlikely in the near future. --Michig (talk) 08:47, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michaelzeng7 (talk) 22:51, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The delete argument used to open this AfD isn't a real reason for deletion, its author should check WP:GD. Regards Eduemoni ^↑talk↓ 23:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 00:36, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. The better target seems to be Sieve (disambiguation) because Sieve is only about use in the kitchen. If there really is anything interesting to be said about wooden sieves other than that they are sieves made of wood then the article can be recreated later. Dingo1729 (talk) 00:50, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Sieve. This cannot as of yet be justified as any more than a stub, and one that is better off as a part of a larger article. A wooden sieve is a type of sieve. Božidar 19:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination provides no reasoning or evidence to support its assertion and so there is no case to answer. The topic is notable and mostly seems to need expansion per our editing policy. Warden (talk) 19:25, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. We're not really having a proper delete discussion here. Nom should have considered performing or proposing a merge WP:BEFORE nominating for deletion. -—Kvng 14:03, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Sieve. Hopefully one decent article can eventually emerge from two immature articles. We can always split again, if necessary, once the material is more developed. -—Kvng 03:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Sieve, which needs more content and broadening beyond cooking applications. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:33, 1 March 2013 (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.