Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Power electronics 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 merge to Power electronics. Sandstein 17:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Power electronics technology

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

This page is a content fork and substantial duplicate of Power electronics. Wtshymanski (talk) 13:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looks like a pretty clear cut duplication of Power electronics and I think that the inevitable conclusion would be to merge. Editor who created it (and a significant editor of the Power electronics article) User talk:P-Tronics is a newbie who IMHO was occasionally treated badly by Wtshymanski. They also asked me a general question about article scope definition, but not this specifically. WP:Please do not bite the newcomers. Hopefully they will participate here and we can have a nice discussion here to sort this out. North8000 (talk) 12:17, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 14:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep / Userfy / Merge There is the most facile and skin deep resemblence between the articles, and a huge amount of content in "P e t" that is not in "P e". Try taking the content from one and copying over the other and See Changes; it is striking. It could make another article or it could be merged. I only support a merge if the material is actually included, not one of the "redirect and forget" actions I see so often. Anarchangel (talk) 03:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment by nominator A merge would have been preferable but the tag was removed. The two articles are about the same subject, it's not Wikipedia style to have multiple articles on the same topic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be willing to do the merge. Also I'd talk to User talk:P-Tronics to explain that this is for the best. It would be take a couple weeks to do the merger, especially with my schedule, not to try to instantly implement with an AFD closure. North8000 (talk) 13:49, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B music ian 04:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

merge with an added trout to Wtshymanski, who's past hostile behaviour at Power electronics is what led to this content fork. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps you could give a reason for your !=vote rather than just attacking the nominator. Edison (talk) 14:17, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[1] [2] Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could explain what your raw citations are supposed to prove. Edison (talk) 05:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Power electronics technology into Power electronics. The Power electronics technology article has a significant amount of sourced information that is not in the Power electronics article. This would significantly enhance and improve the Power electronics article. The more generically-titled article "Power electronics" is where information about its technology and technological advancements should be merged to. Northamerica1000^(talk) 01:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'Merge per Northamerica; that is a reasonable outcome. Bearian (talk) 18:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per my comments above. And take enough time to do it to REALLY retain the material. North8000 (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2012 (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.