Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Whitworth's three plates method

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 Flatness (manufacturing). Please don't bring an article to AFD if your goal is Merge or Redirect. There are other ways of handling that editing choice than launching a week long consideration of whether or not the article should be deleted. It's kind of a waste of time for the few editors who participate in AFDs. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whitworth's three plates method

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

The topic is already in the page Flatness (manufacturing); I propose merging the content into that page and turning this into a redirect. I don't see a rationale for having it isolated. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:56, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey LDM,

I actually see it the other way around: that particulars of achieving flatness should be on its own page, whereas the page on flatness should instead do a better job of explaining how its measured, why it's important, etc. For example, what is a "helium light band"? Not obvious, and the linked section only mentions its equivalent, but not the rational for the name.

I haven't had more time to research this in greater detail, but I also think there's some misattribution of Whitworth's three plates method. It would be interesting to clarify exactly what he contributed to Henry Maudslay's work, and why it wasn't named after him instead.

Lastly, similar-but-slightly different explanation of the 3 plate method are spread across multiple pages, with more elaborated detail there than is necessary. I think it would be good to centralize them all here.

LMK what you think! Amomchilov (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:40, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I searched under a variant of the title and found several more secondary sources. I wish I knew more about topography and manufacturing, even though I’ve worked in both fields. Bearian (talk) 00:21, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian, did you check the longer page Flatness (manufacturing)? This is a merge nomination, not a deletion, and the number of sources does not matter. It is better to have a single more comprehensive page than two too short ones (stubs).

To @Amomchilov, the alternative to not merging would be if you improve both so they are independent and better. Otherwise the #Method section here could (should ?) just be moved to the other where the method is already described in less detail. Combining with other relevant pages as you suggest would be even better -- which are they? Ldm1954 (talk) 02:37, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, merge. I’m not sure why you took the matter here in such case, if you thought that it was non-controversial. Bearian (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think doing a WP:TNT merge without discussion on an article that is 3 days old is impolite to the original editor. Ldm1954 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2024 (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.