Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaw 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 Keep (non-adnim closure). There are several articles about different type of couplings mentioned in Coupling article. If they all are not notable (which I doubt, because they are widely used), please, bundle them together and nominate. Since these articles are rather short, the best soulution may be to merge them to the main article without going to AFD. Ruslik (talk) 07:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jaw coupling[edit]

Originally speedied per G11; recreated with spammy links and renominated per G11. Speedy declined and article prodded. Prod tag deleted. Creator (who is probably also the IP editor) appears to have a COI. In any event, no sources or references after spam deleted, appears to be non-notable in the absence of sources. ukexpat (talk) 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- ukexpat (talk) 18:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - this is a common machinery part, not any less notable than other machinery parts which have their own articles, such as a driveshaft or sprocket. There are several manufacturers so it just needs to be made generic. -- P199 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I would be happy to withdraw the Afd if references can be provided. At the moment the article is just unsourced facts and claims. – ukexpat (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not having any references can't be a reason for deletion. Both my examples of the other parts also don't have a single reference (for that matter, 1000s of articles don't). -- P199 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can and is. --neon white talk 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cite the WP policy. If so, then 1000's of articles need to be deleted. -- P199 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Coupling. There's no good reason for a seperate article here. --neon white talk 20:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Coupling - There is some useful info here, but most of it is too technical and it isn't notable enough for it's own article. If it gets expanded large enough with useful info, then it should get a separate page. To resolve COI, include reliable refs not from Ruland. Crazyjoe (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary: the technical info makes it encyclopedic. Otherwise it would be superficial and no more than a dictionary description. -- P199 (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesnt address it's lack of notability. --neon white talk 22:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A jaw coupling is no more or less notable than other machinery parts. A google search shows 11400 hits with numerous manufacturers and distributors. -- P199 (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2008 (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.