Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dust suppression

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 Merged to Dust#Dust control by nominator, who then withdrew the nom, and there being no other editors recommending Deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 20:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dust suppression

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

Delete No significant content, and no evidence of notability. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See below for my new opinion on this. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, or else or Merge with the article Dust. This article is a stub, but could be expanded. This sounds like a significant subject (a Google search reveals dozens of companies in the dust suppression business) and I suspect non-commercial references could be found. --MelanieN (talk) 03:45, 15 December 2009 (UTC)MelanieN[reply]
Comment I would not object to the suggested merge. However, the article is not worth keeping as an article. The fact that there are dozens of companies in the business does not mean that the subject is worth having an article on. Has anyone written a significant amount about dust suppression? "There are several companies doing this" is not Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Copy to Wiktionary then merge & redirect: to Dust#Dust control. Mattg82 (talk) 22:47, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Coffee // have a cup // flagged revs now! // 05:23, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Copy to Wiktionary if you like, though I'm not sure the expression is really current enough to justify it. The redirect to Dust#Dust control now seems to me the best thing to do. If nobody objects I shall do that. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I guess your right the reference is over 20 years old. Mattg82 (talk) 16:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We now have (since I changed my mind) 100% agreement for merging with Dust, so I have done this. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:59, 23 December 2009 (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.