Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Properties of MSW

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 Municipal solid waste. So Why 15:39, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Properties of MSW

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

An interesting subject, but this looks like someone copied and pasted an engineering paper. Wikipedia is not a textbook or a scientific journal. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:07, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Preserve at a subpage of the talk page of municipal solid waste and delete the resulting redirect. There probably is information here that would be useful for editors seeking to improve that article. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tim Song (talk) 02:24, 8 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 // ark // 00:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge some of this information into Municipal Solid Waste. It's actually an interesting article, but it reads like a municipal public works study and seems to be a synthesis of original research. Also, I've never heard of a page called "Properties of X." Seems like that's what the article on X should be about. --Glenfarclas (talk) 12:22, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I agree with the merge proposal, or add as subpage to talk page per Smerdis. Some potentially interesting material, but with a single inline reference, so needs work before it can be pulled into the other article. That would also help alleviate the concern about a possible copy and paste.--SPhilbrick T 15:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems like a good solution, but if we're going to delete the redirect (which also seems reasonable), then presumably a history merge will be needed, which could get ugly because the two articles have overlapping histories. --RL0919 (talk) 01:32, 21 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.