Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Copper in energy-efficient motors


 * 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 delete. If anyone thinks some of the content is worth merging into another article, please contact me or another administrator for a copy of the text. -- Ed (Edgar181) 11:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Copper in energy-efficient motors

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

The article seems to me to fail under WP:NOTESSAY. If you scrap all the context material (most of which is adequately covered in Electric motor), it basically comes down to "copper is good because it makes less Joule effect". While the second part is true, it is WP:POV to sweep the cost considerations under the carpet, and I fail to see the notability of the subject.

Pinging who reviewed this at WP:AFC. Tigraan (talk) 11:22, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America1000 22:20, 6 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – Some of the article's content would benefit the Electric motor article via a selective merge. North America1000 22:22, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No objection to that. Tigraan (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Informative and well-sourced article that delves into many aspects of motor technology. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC).
 * How is it "well-sourced"? There are plenty of sources, sure, but that is for statements like the proportion of alloys, the current norms, etc. Putting aside the "Copper Development Association" sources which can reasonably be assumed to be biased, the only source I see for notability is the first one (the IEA report). Tigraan (talk) 08:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment - this reads like a master's thesis, not an article on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete WP:NOTESSAY is right. Fair warning: I am generally in favor of deletion of 'boutique' pages until there's a very clear need for them. There is no clear need for (nor any clearly novel content within) this article.
 * Riventree (talk) 01:34, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, this is basically an essay puffed up with a few refs that do not demonstrate notability (they're on minor components of the material), and what substance there is, is better covered already at Electric motor. I doubt there's enough substance to be worth merging. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * delete redundant essay, wrong title: it is (besides other stuff) is baout copper in any electrical motors. But even in this case the subject is not notable: no sources specifically discuss exclusively "copper in motors". They may compare various metals, but this belongs to the corresponding articles about devices themselves. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * In the interst of fairness: the IEA report does discuss the topic ("copper versus alternatives for motors"). Actually, a part of the article used to be copyvio of it. Tigraan Click here to contact me 08:56, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete No real sources on this exact topic. Bruriyah (talk) 00:57, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge - best answer would be to merge it into an appropriate article. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2016 (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.