Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crank sensor

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 non-admin close and redirect. An AfD wasn't really necessary for this article. As that this concerns a redundant article. There was no relevant material to merge into crankshaft position sensor, I simply redirected to the more relevant entry. Trusilver 16:48, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Crank sensor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log

)

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

This article is redundant, with almost all of its content included word for word in the more complete crankshaft position sensor article. Destynova (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• merge and redirect - per nom. The article could use some sources, though. Trusilver 23:55, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• This is Articles for deletion. Don't bring articles here when deletion forms no part of what you want. When you see
  Project:duplicate articles, which does not involve deletion at any stage. Uncle G (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Obviously there's only one subject and they should be merged, but as a matter of simple fact this article was created in 2006 and the proposed target in 2009, so that's the redundant duplicate and not this one. It is normal, I think, to redirect to the older article where there's no compelling reason to do otherwise? No admin action required, anyway, as the merge will leave a redirect with history. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 6 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, It's obvious what needs to be done with this article, so I'm just going to do a close of this AfD. I've already gone through the article and there really isn't anything to merge into the new one that wouldn't be redundant, so I'm simply going to redirect. Trusilver 16:44, 6 October 2011 (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.