Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tree baler


 * 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. More recent discussion has brought evidence of notability. Whether this can be done by hand does not bear relevance to notability, as pointed out by others. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:20, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

Tree baler

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

It exists, but I can find no sign it is WP:NOTABLE Boleyn (talk) 09:53, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I can't even.--Savonneux (talk) 09:55, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 11:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Undecided. Merge to Christmas tree. Cursory source searches are not providing enough coverage to qualify a standalone article. However, this is a valid search term, so redirection is appropriate, and the merge target article presently has no mention of this aspect of the topic. North America1000 11:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment That sounds like a sensible solution. Boleyn (talk) 12:30, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge per above. KGirlTrucker81talk what I'm been doing 12:32, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I changed my !vote above to "undecided". North America1000 15:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete or merge. I could go either way. Def doesn't warrant its own article though. -- Zackmann08 (Talk to me/What I been doing) 18:49, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Comment I will not take a stand on merge, or keep, today. But I will note that merging to Christmas tree would be a mistake, since arborists routinely bale live trees they plan to transport, then transplant.  Christmas tree balers are a special case.  Note also that while most of the ghits from a google scholar search are to patents on tree balers the search does show that there are technical journals, Transactions of the ASAE, published by the American Society of Agricultural and Biological Engineers, where one can find technical articles that talk about tree balers.  This one is behind a pay-wall, but it seems reliable sources do address this topic.  Geo Swan (talk) 14:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:21, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's findings. Merging would be a viable option if there were a suitable merge target (and Christmas tree isn't), and I can't find any. Forestry machines doesn't exist. Uanfala (talk) 07:27, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep per 's comments that there is NOT a suitable merge target AND that there are secondary sources like [] and [] and [] MB 22:41, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete It is just a machine that mechanizes a process that can be done by hand, and called the same thing if done by hand. The process itself is not notable for a stand-alone article, any more than bagging oranges in plastic net bags would be notable, or stacking shelves would be notable, or sticking letters into envelopes would be notable, even though all are essential activities that can involve specialist equipment to mechanize the activity. Tiptoethrutheminefield (talk) 15:06, 24 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I'm able to comment on the notability of the processes, but there are articles (probably many) on various specific kinds of machines, for example one for – Folding machine (and the specific section: Folding machine. Uanfala (talk) 16:00, 24 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't get the point that "it is just a machine that mechanizes a process that can be done by hand". WP is full of articles that are about even more mundane machines or tools (e.g. loom, broom, hammer).  Isn't the question one of notability.  There are secondary sources that describe tree balers (I provided links to three above) which are more than sufficient to establish notability. MB 04:53, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep. A machine that does something significant is an appropriate subject for a WP article. Harvesting machines in their various types are suitable subjects. As  says, it is wholly irrelevant if something can be done by hand also. Do we remove articles on word processing and typewriters because writing can be done by hand also?  DGG ( talk ) 22:55, 31 August 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.