Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Endless-piston principle


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__. If an editor wants to create a Redirect from this page title, feel free. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Endless-piston principle

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

No indication of notability. Zero sources. Orphaned for a decade. Pepper Beast   (talk)  23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 22:50, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   Pepper Beast    (talk)  23:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete My searches picked up some info   but it's not independent RS coverage and just shows this is a WP:NEOLOGISM coined by a single company. SmartSE (talk) 01:01, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The sources you provide are from different researchers at multiple companies so your WP:NEOLOGISM argument does not fly. Also just because the researchers are employed in the private sector does not make their papers unreliable. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Smartse's argument is that they are not independent, and so do not show that the no original research bar has been met. I could publish a company paper making up a name for something, but it wouldn't be appropriate for Wikipedia unless third-parties acknowledged my newly named concept and it had become part of actual human knowledge.  And even then, as in this case, if I'd just made up some we-have-reinvented-something-old-and-made-it-seem-new name it would only belong in Wikipedia if others had explained that my new name was really just the old thing. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge to Progressing cavity pump. Further research reveals these to be synonyms. Definitely a notable topic under either name. ~Kvng (talk) 15:23, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * are convincing. The authors cite one of the commercial WWW-site sources for the "endless-piston principle" and say that they are rotating displacement pumps.  Chua et al. are engineering professors.  Amusingly, the first sentence of the article outright says as well that these are rotating positive displacement pumps.  Alas, from that our readers only get to progressing cavity pump via screw pump, when really they should be able to get there directly; but progressing cavity pump is where we have this by its actual non-commercial-puffery name, and that latter is where this commercial-puffery name should redirect, as a credible, but not proper, alternative name. We should not merge any of the content.  It's a cleaned up version of the original version of the article which is a almost a straight lift, with some word changes here and there, from .  "Our pump technology provides additional benefits compared to other conveying mechanisms" becomes "Compared to other conveying methods, this pumping technology has even more advantages to offer", for one example.  Wikipedia has copied and lightly re-worded an advert.  Ironically, this copyright violation is of the very same page on ViscoTec's WWW site that the engineering professors cite and explain. In fact, deleting all of this copyright violating and advert-repeating edit history first and then putting a redirect in place seems the best outcome, to remove temptation. Uncle G (talk) 08:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Star   Mississippi  03:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * Delete to expunge the advertorial material and then create a redirect, as suggested above. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete then create new redirect per Uncle G. I wasted time looking for good references; this is just engineering spam for one company. -- A. B. (talk • contribs •  global count)  21:05, 1 December 2023 (UTC)


 * Delete. As per @A. B., there are no sources. @Uncle G has found one source but it isn't very descriptive. I don't think this article can be rewritten without violating copyright, single source or notability. I think a paragraph or two written into the positive displacement or progressing cavity articles using Uncle G's source will be enough. Matarisvan (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2023 (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.