Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cleaver (propeller)


 * 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 propeller.  MBisanz  talk 00:08, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Cleaver (propeller)

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Tagged for notability for 5 years. I couldn't establish notability, but with so many other issues with this article, hopefully someone will find something. Boleyn (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep. Chapman Piloting and Seamanship, Popular Mechanics, Motorboating & Sailing, New Scientist. Pburka (talk) 22:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per Pburka's good reference finds. Mark viking (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to propeller and redirect there. Per the sources above it appears really to be a design variant. There doesn't seem to be enough to say to warrant a separate article but if the new section in propeller expands it can be spun out in the usual way. Mcewan (talk) 11:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep per the new sources found. — Ed! (talk) 16:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. &#9733;&#9734;  DUCK IS PEANUTBUTTER &#9734;&#9733; 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Merge to propeller as above  ·Add§hore·  T alk T o M e ! 20:38, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to propeller. Not enough sourcing and no claim to establish notability for standalone article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:27, 20 January 2013 (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.