Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Swan neck duct


 * 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 and split into two separate articles (or two articles and disambiguation page). Deryck C. 15:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Swan neck duct

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Unsourced despite corresponding tag since 2009 (WP:V). Also, a collection of topics that have nothing in common but their name (WP:IINFO, WP:NOTDICT). If sourced, some content could be merged to related articles, but as it isn't sourced...  Sandstein  19:52, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 12:06, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Split; keep here just jet-engine meaning. Multiple meanings should be disambiguated each to their own page (or redirect to parent articles, etc.). The jet-engine meaning was the only topic of the article when it was created, up until User:81.111.216.41 added Pasteur's flask on 12 October 2009‎, and this meaning is now cited (thanks User:Mark viking!). The other meaning belongs somewhere else, probably Swan neck flask. That term is widely used for this experiment--I rewrote the content and added a ref. It could instead redirect to Louis Pasteur, or else some content from there could be transferred to that new article on the apparatus. DMacks (talk) 03:48, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * See my comment below. On that note, Mark Viking's cite was to "Swan-neck flask" not "Swan neck duct" as you suggest. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 09:54, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Mark Viking's edit? DMacks (talk) 12:41, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Presumably not the edit you mentioned above which was said to have endorsed Pasteur's "duct". To be honest, I'm not sure who added that false citation, maybe Mark deserves more credit than that. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 15:56, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * In this article, I have added two references for the jet engine/gas turbine usage and have not touched the Pasteur section. --Mark viking (talk) 07:33, 9 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Split per DMacks. While parts of the article are independently verifiable, the main sin here is synthesis per WP:SYNTH of two different subjects that are not discussed together in the literature. I was able to easily find a couple of reliable sources for the turbine interface and a GScholar search for "swan neck" turbine shows more RS to be had. This is a necessary component of jet engines and other high performance gas turbines and looks notable per WP:GNG. I agree with DMacks that the swan neck duct in chemistry or biology is most closely associated with the famous Pasteur experiment and is best merged and redirected into the Louis Pasteur section. With those actions the article can become a well-formed stub that has WP:POTENTIAL for improvement. --Mark viking (talk) 11:17, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:02, 28 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete. This article is presumably a reaction to the hijacking of the main swan neck by beer drinkers. From the aeronautical perspective, the term is a trivial description of any suitably-shaped duct and has no special relevance to turbines. Try the equivalent search for example on "swan neck" plumbing or "swan neck" coolant. In science, the swan neck is more normally met in the swan neck flask or a tube than a "duct". No, this article is not the way. Better to tackle the beer drinkers over the applicability of the "swan neck" as an ordinary phrase much used in the wider world. &mdash; Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 20:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping, who created Swan neck as an article and made it a redirect to Beer engine, respectively. Should "swan neck" become a disambiguation page since we have at least two (and maybe three) kinds of "swan neck..." things and one (and maybe more) are redirects (means it's hard to hatnote disambig/cross-link them). DMacks (talk) 22:26, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. We have Swan neck deformity (which looks like it could be considered for merging with Boutonniere deformity), Edith the Fair, Swan-neck bottle, Mega Trailer, Pediment, Spur, and other articles which are about topics which are often described with the term "swan neck" (swan neck spur, swan neck pediment, etc), so it would be appropriate to turn Swan neck into a disamb page, and I will do that shortly. I have no opinion on Swan neck duct, it is not a topic I am familiar with, but the current article is written as a Broad-concept article, so it is worth discussing to see if that is appropriate, or if it should be turned into a regular disamb page.  SilkTork  ✔Tea time  09:37, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — UY Scuti Talk  19:42, 2 September 2016 (UTC)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:15, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Split/Disambiguate -- I feel like consensus has already been reached on this point, and I agree with it. See above for specific arguments. Fieari (talk) 04:39, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep and Split - Keep this article as the jet-engine duct. Split out the info on the flask into Swan neck flask.  I think that is better than redirecting to Louis Pasteur as there is also Spontaneous generation and both of these article could link to Swan neck flask.  It seems that "swan neck duct" has been used prior to jet engines (here is a source from 1868 [] but I think any usage related to air ducts (jet engine or otherwise) belongs here. MB 03:47, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Split - agreed - split into swan neck flask and swan neck duct. Gandalf61 (talk) 15:57, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed, but I ask to delete the present content of "See also" from either. The explanation of eponymous resemblance to a swan's neck should be worked into the text of both articles, including the link to Swan.  The "Hydro massage" link has nothing to do with either subject, and no reference to "swan" is found in the hydro massage article; if there really is a notable "swan-neck" type of water jet, then it should be stated in that article and listed instead on Swan neck (disambiguation). IveGoneAway (talk) 20:52, 22 September 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.