Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Submersible pump cable

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 submersible pump . MBisanz ^talk 03:27, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Submersible pump cable

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

Contested notability. Merge to submersible pump or delete. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:16, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also some discussion at Talk:Submersible_pump#Merge of Submersible pump cable

keep clearly notable as a separate topic since it passes WP:GNG with two independent sections of works on this topic. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 15:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 04:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, sources discussing this sub topic establish its notability per GNG without the need for a larger topic scope. --No unique names 04:46, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (or merge & redirect) - this may not seem an exciting topic, but it is properly sourced and can stand. Whether it needs to be stand-alone or would be better merged with submarine pump is a matter of opinion; either way, the search term is useful and should be retained at least as a redirect. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is clearly notable and the references support this. Editorially it should certainly be merged with submersible pump but that is quite another matter and no reason for deletion (indeed technically it is a reason against deletion). Thincat (talk) 12:01, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Note to other !voters: the presence of sources does not confer notability. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:49, 3 December 2012 (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.