Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bucket crusher


 * 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Bucket crusher

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There are not enough sources given to justify an article on the subject. The only source used is a patent and therefore not ideal (see WP:PATENTS). Apparently, there is no coverage of this very specific type of crusher in reliable sources. I fail to see a reason not to include the bucket crusher with the exisiting crusher article. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 07:53, 6 July 2019 (UTC)


 * How do you know that there are no other sources? What have you done to find out?  Notice that the article began as a translation of de:Backenbrecherlöffel, which gives "Brecherlöffel", "Brecherschaufel", "Kübelbrecher", "Löffelbrecher" as alternative names.  Did you try looking up these names?  What did you find?  Your rationale shows none of this. You need to provide thorough rationales upon which people can hang their hats.  You need to explain, for example, why the article on page 57 of the April 2010 edition of Maschinen&amp;Technik is not a good source; or why the entry for "Brecherlöffel" on page 71 of the 2012 study (Studie zur Eignungsfähigkeit und zum Entwicklungsbedarf von Gerätschaften) done by the Karlsruher Institut für Technologie for the Bundesamt für Strahlenschutz is not adequate.  But your haven't shown what effort you have put into determining any of this, so people still have such counterarguments.  Always do a thorough job with rationales. Uncle G (talk) 11:44, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * In case you can provide good sources, go ahead and put them in the article. If it's in German, I might be able to help with that. In its current state, the bucket crusher article does not provide sufficient sources, and feeding Google books did not give me sufficient results. After all, things need to be verifiable. Currently, I do not see how verifiability could be achieved... Best, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:05, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Well the German Wikipedia has revealed the German names. But a thorough nomination would also have to be proof against sources such as ISBN 9788860551221 p. 152 which explains that a benna frantumatrice is one of four types of machine frantumatrice.  The good news is that this is the language of the country that makes most of these things.  The bad news is that it turns up sources like an UNACEA publication which starts off by stating that "La benna frantumatrice è un’attrezzatura utilizzata nelle attività di riduzione volumetrica di materiali misti e di cemento armato.". Uncle G (talk) 23:21, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * I hope you are indulging in some parody at this point. When we are at the point that a nominator is obliged to demonstrate absence of sources in every European language, then we are well on the way into Cloudcuckooland. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:40, 8 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep I'd not heard of these before but the video is quite convincing. On the technical side, Uncle G has done a good job of crushing the nomination.  I'd just add that we also have a section about the topic at Crusher and so there's an obvious alternative to deletion per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * If we have a section regarding the bucket crusher in an existing article, why do we need a poorly referenced article on it? --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 15:23, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep While searches for the English term just seem to produce dozens of patents and sales pages, the German KTI study mentioned by Uncle G above does indeed provide a general function & application description that can be used as a basic source for the article. I'm inserting it. Whether it needs to be a separate article or should rather be merged to Crusher remains a question, IMO. (On a side note, "video looks convincing" is a feeble Keep argument even by this editor's standards.) -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:18, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep Enough here to justify. MaskedSinger (talk) 12:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Keep per Uncle G --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:11, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


 * 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.