Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Express coupling

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 redirect to Hose coupling#Express coupling. Mark Arsten (talk) 23:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Express coupling

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Hard to understand and no references Ushau97 ^{talk contribs} 10:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 16:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unreferenced article is apparently about a specific type of hose coupling: ....symmetrial half-couplings for water and air which complying with the NF E 29-573 standard. If this phrase always refers to a specific kind, that might be a redirect candidate. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 16:46, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect The article looks like a close paraphrasing of LMC's express coupling product sheet. I could find no secondary sources for the topic, only primary spec sheets and sales listings. Note that the express couplings are already mentioned in the Hose coupling article; I agree that it is the natural target for a redirect. Mark viking (talk) 06:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete per Smerdis, Mark, WP:CHEAP, and WP:OR. Bearian (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hose coupling#Express coupling No inherent notable for a standalone article. Borderline WP:OR with no reliable or independent sources. Definitely fails WP:SIGCOV for WP:GNG. Mkdw ^talk 08:02, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mediran (t • c) 10:57, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above. Hose coupling has a section Hose coupling#Express coupling which is a very obvious target. Doesn't seem notable on its own. --Colapeninsula (talk) 15:24, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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.