Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Synthetic rope


 * 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 Rope. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Synthetic rope

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Please see Rope Roxy, the Prod . wooF 13:32, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment. Are you going to add a meaningful deletion rationale, detailing why you believe this article should be deleted? --Michig (talk) 13:46, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- It's not possible to add a meaningful deletion rationale. This is clearly a notable topic.  Aside from the firefighter-associated refs already in the article, which are the tip of a rather large iceberg in the firefighting literature as a GBooks search will show, it turns out that synthetic rope is widely studied for any number of reasons.  Take a look at this GScholar search to see what I mean. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 14:39, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect as a categorized to , not that there is a lot to merge, but there is no need to presently have a separate article based on material type alone. The article title is, however, a valid search term. Sam Sailor 17:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 17:20, 7 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge and redirect as suggested above. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Redirect as suggested above. I'm not opposed to a merge, but I'm not seeing what could be merged: we can't create a new section in another article for one, two or even three short sentences, and haphazardly throwing them into any old spot in any old article is how we get messes like [insert random target of a bunch of arbitrary mergers here]. And FWIW, even though I really don't like the amount of red-tape certain "keepist" editors have been gradually building up to get in the way of AFD nominators, I think opening this up front rather than going to ANI (or perhaps consulting with me beforehand given that it was me that attempted to discuss the issue on the talk page) would have been the better option from the beginning. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 07:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , nobody has suggested creating a new section in the target. Sam Sailor 21:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * In my experience AFDs that end in "merge" results normally lead to either redirecting with the promise of merging the content at some later date or a clumsy merging that involves creating a section in the target article named for the merged article with the content of the merged article just stuffed in that section. Proper merging requires careful consideration; it shouldn't be difficult with an article of this length, but I don't see it having been done here yet.
 * Plus, you literally said just above here that it should be merged to an as-yet non-existent section entitled "Synthetic rope" in the Rope article, so ... well, I don't have a problem with you suggesting something I personally don't like, and honestly even if it happens I won't lose any sleep over it, but then pinging me to say that no one suggested what you suggested is ... well, you have to see the humour in that.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 21:51, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * , right, no, you keep misunderstanding the difference between an (anchor already created in Special:Diff/867539784/867732477) and an, which I have never suggested. Sam Sailor 22:11, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, I see it now. You misunderstood what I said as being specifically targeted at what you wrote, and pinged me to tell me that what you thought I wrote was wrong, and then when I point out that what you wrote (which, full disclosure, I hadn't even noticed until after you pinged me) is pretty damn close to what you thought I was accusing you of you again tell me I'm wrong. Anyway, I don't care. Don't ping me again. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 22:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge, I suppose, as contributing to a general improvement of the rope article but I don't feel strongly against merely a redirect (or even keep). There is nothing wrong with the article and the topic passes WP:GNG although editorially the contents could sensibly be handled as part of the broader topic. Even the nomination seems to be hinting at redirect although the earlier PROD had a contrary implication. Sometimes a redirect is accompanied by deleting the previous article content. This would not be appropriate here. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect. Barely a dictionary definition.  A standalone article on the topic could exist one day; this is not that article. Fish +Karate  10:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Rope is rope, made from Synthetic, man made or natural fibre. Synthetic fibre rope is not a topic independent of Rope. - Also, see ANI for background. -Roxy, the Prod . wooF 23:55, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Synthetic cannabinoids -- a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Cannabinoids are cannabinoids...
 * Synthetic diamond -- a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Diamonds are diamonds...
 * Synthetic fiber -- a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Fiber is fiber...
 * Synthetic rubber -- a standalone article on this topic should never exist. Rubber is rubber...
 * The point is that there are plenty of sources, as noted above, that treat synthetic rope as a distinct topic from rope itself. It's not our place to argue with the sources on the basis of some ad hoc synthetic reasoning because we have some unfounded opinion, or even a founded opinion, that "a standalone article on this topic should never exist." 192.160.216.52 (talk) 18:02, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Don’t be silly. Roxy, the Prod . wooF 19:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not being silly. Look at the GScholar search I linked to.  Synthetic rope is covered in many sources as a thing in itself rather than as a variety of generic rope.  The fact that you don't see it as independently important is probably due to the fact that you're not a firefighter or someone else for whom the distinction is vital.  Really, it's just like diamonds.  There's no chemical difference between synthetic diamonds and natural diamonds, so by your reasoning why should we have separate articles?  The answer is, of course, that the sources say we should.  Just like they say we should have a separate article on synthetic rope. 192.160.216.52 (talk) 19:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I can’t, I’m busy writing a red car article, then a blue car article, and following up with yellow white green and black articles. Roxy, the Prod . wooF 19:52, 12 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Merge to Rope. Unnecessary for now, and there isn't enough to warrant a separate article, I think develop first in the rope article until there is enough material to split. Hzh (talk) 23:37, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge into "Rope". The guideline WP:NOPAGE states "There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context." The article, such as it is, has two sentences that could be copy-pasted into the "Rope" article. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:46, 13 November 2018 (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.