Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of pumps


 * 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   no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 11:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Comparison of pumps

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems like a marketing brochure; "Which pump is right for you?" Non-encyclopedic, and unnecessary comparison \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment Jesus Christ, it shouldn't hurt to just make a grouped AfD? FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Group AfDs don't work when the articles are so different, and each one may have individual merit. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 22:01, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Still we don't need a new AfD relating to comparisions every ten seconds. FunnyDuckIsFunny (talk) 22:02, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Non encyclopedic, far too subjective in terms of comparing one week's product catalogue with another, and I see no way in which this could be fixed. A prose description of the relative merits of each sort (and leaving comparisons or application choice to the reader) might have some value, but this isn't it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep -- are we looking at the same article? There is no 'marketing' information here, no links to commercial pump suppliers, merely a list of different pump types with parameters. Aren't there articles on some of these other pump types? Only 6 or 7 are linked currently, but if these are all distinctive types (which they are, looking at the reference used) presumably there is scope for them being described in WP in the future. Since the list doesn't specifically mention a suitable purpose for each pump, it cannot be considered a "Which pump is right for you?" selection guide. To help counteract this, I have adjusted the lede to suit. However, I also agree with Andy that there should be more prose description of each type, possibly losing some of existing the columns (such as 'Difficulty of repair' (very subjective) and 'hazard to fish' (which column contains no useful info.) EdJogg (talk) 00:02, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I must say that I have the same feeling as User:EdJogg above: are we actually looking at the same article? Because I simply cannot see this as a "marketing brochure".  The different pumps are listed only by their types, such as "Archimedean screw", "Chain and washer pump", "Coil and spiral pump", "Diaphragm pump" and so on.  None of these types are tied to a particular company, and I simply cannot see this table as a marketing attempt (nor do I see it as "comparing one week's product catalogue with another", per User:Andy Dingley above).
 * I was somewhat worried about possible commercial references/external links, but the only reference is to a page from Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, and you can hardly accuse that of being a commerical (or "marketing") link.
 * Having said that, I should point out that I have no opinion on whether this table, as it stands, is worthwhile as a separate Wikipedia article. The nominator's arguments that this is "[n]on-encyclopedic, and unnecessary comparison" are possibly valid; all I wanted is to say that I do not see any marketing attempt here.
 * -- Ekjon Lok (talk) 01:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

KVDP (talk) 08:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep- per the above. Btw regarding EddJogg's comment, aldough it isn't quite stated that a specific type is more useful for a certain purpose, due to the pumping height, we can get an overall idea; eg if it states that it is 100m or more, it could eg be used as a potable water pump, lower lift heights typically refer to irrigation pumps. As for the discarting of columns, indeed some could be removed, but some (such as the "hazard to fish") are best kept. reason for this is that pumps are also used in national installations on rivers (eg locks, flood protection, ...). Some (even in developed countries) still use pumps very hazardous to fish (actually more than hazardous as it kills the fish anyhow).


 * An article that described different pump mechanisms would be useful. Comparisons between them though becomes subjective and run foul of WP:OR. This article, as it stands, isn't good enough as a description to warrant inclusion. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:38, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It isn't original research to list stats like that. And the perceived quality level of the article is not a valid reason to delete it.   D r e a m Focus  10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Which "stats" are listed? Production costs of "medium-high" are too vague to convey useful information and even when these are quantitative, delivery heights that range "10m-100m" aren't much better, let alone a column of question marks. "Medium-high" isn't useful because it's not precise enough (not enough increments) and it's also unclear what budget we're judging it by. What's an expensive way to pump water for a village's irrigation is cheap for nuclear reactor coolant. These broad values are also unclear because "plunger pumps" work over a huge range, but don't become meaningful for comparison until we know which plunger pump (i.e. size, drive power) we're talking about.
 * I don't know what a "Progressive cavity (mono)" type of pump is. This article doesn't tell me, nor does it offer even a redlink that suggests it might try to in the future.
 * The article, as it stands, has two distinct problems. It doesn't convey enough useful information to be an objective list of descriptions - this might be fixable in a similar article, but this article isn't it and is currently no more than a list of names. Secondly a comparison in this sense becomes subjective: "high cost" only exists when you assume the budget available. Subjective judgements like that are inherently WP:OR, because they introduce that assumption for budget or manufacturing capabilities.
 * At risk of censure for WP:OWN, I'd compare this article to the (incomplete) List of boiler types, by manufacturer. That's a similar article in some ways: it takes a core technology with many different approaches within it then tries to enumerate the possible options and tie them into some organised taxonomy. It doesn't make comparisons between them though.
 * "quality level of the article is not a valid reason to delete it." Opinions vary on that. If someone fixes it now, then great. Otherwise it can be best to delete poor articles and re-create them again later. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep A valid encyclopedia entry, listing the types of pumps, and information about them, plus linking to various Wikipedia articles about pumps that have already had articles made about them.  D r e a m Focus  10:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to pump The main article has no real list of types, which is after all what this article really is. Mangoe (talk) 13:54, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. This is an indiscriminate collection of information drawn from primary sources (two failings in one).  Guy (Help!) 18:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete this indiscriminate collection of stuff. It isn't an encyclopedia article and i can't see how it could be made to be one.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:33, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep An article comparing, or even just listing, types of pump is valid. This article needs to be greatly improved to be of much use, but the potential is probably there. A tag such as Cleanup or Notability would be a better temporary solution than deletion. Globbet (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep The topic has great notability as pumps are commonly required to perform continuously for long periods, like the heart, and so their characteristics have been extensively studied and compared. The nomination seems disruptive, as it appears to be part of a drive-by deletion spree contrary to our deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep As per previous comments. If there's actually a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, it would be welcomed at, but I don't think there's any reason to delete. --Chriswaterguy talk 08:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep the article needing improvement is never a reason to delete. Could be greatly expanded to provide a useful comparison and certainly has the notability to meet inclusion criteria. Too much information to merge into the pump article. The   Seeker 4   Talk  13:46, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and make articles on each significant type that does not already have an article of its own. This should properly be regarded as a summary or navigation article. When there are factual things to compare, the comparison is not OR.    DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 29 October 2009 (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.