Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wrapping technology

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The result was keep - Nom's withdrawn but it seems he wants it Merged, Since it seems to be one big clusterfuck I'm closing as Keep but I have no issues if anyone wants to Merge or Redirect themselves (providing afds are changed, Cheers (non-admin closure) –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:21, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seems someone's already merged it - Would've helped if this was also closed with it.... –Davey2010 • (talk) 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wrapping technology[edit]

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

Vanity article started by a known sock puppet of Ariel Fernandez, who "pioneered" this technology. As noted in the talk page of the article, the notability of the subject matter has not been established by its own right. Content overlaps significantly with dehydron and if not deleted outright, it should likely just be merged in there as a subsection. Bueller 007 (talk) 07:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Bueller 007 (talk) 17:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's just merge this into dehydron - I don't think we need to go through a whole AfD. Want to withdraw this and let's just do that? Jytdog (talk) 12:37, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I'm fine with that. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - OK, then would you close this one? I will go ahead and do the merge/redirect. Jytdog (talk) 16:22, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a non-admin, I do not know how to do this. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:55, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously non-notable self-promotion. I wouldn't bother taking the time to merge. Delete with prejudice. NickCT (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note a redirect is not appropriate here given that the term "wrapping technology" is much more likely to refer to other topics, rather than the topic of this article. NickCT (talk) 17:35, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:38, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The article has already been merged to Dehydron making it a redirect, 3 days ago. I see, no opposition on there. Should be closed as Nomination Withdrawn or simply Keep per SNOW?. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 08:01, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: - It's still a delete. It's actually become a double redirect. The merge really shouldn't have been done till this discussion was concluded. NickCT (talk) 14:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NickCT -I was just wondering, merge has been performed leaving subject a redirect to target, and no one appeared on there to challenge the merge. If you believe the merge is not appropriate, you should revert them and ask them to discuss first the merge on target article's talk page or here. I remember a similar case, which I did close recently, you said "promotional and have not time to perform merge", well other people had time to fix and they did, therefore I closed that one. In present case, I didn't because you also said, 'a redirect will not be appropriate', then again I wonder why don't you challenge the merge? Tell them why a merge/redirect is inappropriate in present case. I absolutely have zero idea about the subjects involved, therefore I may not able to suggest a view. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 17:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Anupmehra: - Thanks for your comments! My rationale for saying it's inappropriate is pretty simply really. If you simply google "wrapping technology" you will see that it very rarely refers to the subject of the redirect. If the term "wrapping technology" is never used to refer to the subject in question then "wrapping technology" should redirect to article in question.

I didn't challenge the merge because the editor who preformed the merge is a little aggressive and generally starts shouting at reverts. NickCT (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's weird. You should really not fear them. I've strickenthrough my one comment that may create confusion that merge is unchallenged. It may be a little hard to have converse with some people, but when there's no way out, you must do. Seems like, they are enjoying performing bold-merges. That's really not what WP:MERGETEXT says. Anupmehra -Let's talk! 18:10, 8 December 2014 (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.