Talk:Miniature hydraulics

WP:PROD

I'm an inclusionist by nature, and it grieves me to nominate deletions, but I don't see any proximal salvation here.

The article began life with a flurry of edits, not entirely encyclopedic (this is no crime, as many articles once did, but it can't be the endgame).

• Miniature hydraulics

Then an editor came along and gave it an extreme crew cut, more or less down to the stub form we now see.

Here's an example problem:

Miniature hydraulics, mini hydraulics, and micro hydraulics are abbreviated as or otherwise known as M-H.

This seems to link to related material, but no:

• small hydro — most common range, although not binding, in capacity of "small hydro" extends between 1 to 15 MW
• micro hydro — a type of hydroelectric power that typically produces from 5 kW to 100 kW of electricity using the natural flow of water

In the oldid link above, there's some salvageable material. It would still not make a good article, but it would be less risible. But to what end? I just don't see this topic as having a substantive future any better than its current track record, which is extremely thin (five edits since 2012, as noted in the PROD comment). — MaxEnt 21:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

My dutiful notification of the page creator, User talk:Linsperf, encountered a blizzard of same. — MaxEnt 21:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Deprod by User:Mark viking

Edit comment: Deprod: there is no time limit for the improvement of an article and the first source, a section in a handbook for hydraulics, looks like an RS for the topic.

In no way was I suggesting a time limit. I was using five edits in seven years as a reliable sample concerning world-at-large give-a-shit malaise (edit: the same way any grocer assesses the local notability of some Indian spice, not commonly found outside its home country). Wikipedia is adolescent now. Sample sizes over time are now large enough to support other modes of inference other than tick, tick, tick. — MaxEnt 17:40, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

But then again, I concede that one RS is probably enough to justify a different deletion process. — MaxEnt 17:45, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

After going back and removing the two bogus links (mentioned above) I'm completely fine with the reduced version as it now exists, though I suspect it shall remain a permastub. — MaxEnt 17:50, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about the long self-dialog. A different deletion process would be on grounds of notability, and as I first stated, I'm temperamentally an inclusionist, so I have no desire to go there, even though a deletionist might find the notability of this article extremely sketchy (the one RS being insufficient to pass a more formal process). — MaxEnt 17:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and explanation. I agree the topic may be marginal in terms of passing notability. One RS is not enough; on the other hand if it made it into a handbook, a kind of tertiary source, perhaps there are other reliable sources out there. A quick search shows some impact, such as applications in F1 racing[1] and prosthetic devices[2] and quite a few manufacturers. Research is being done in the field.[3] On the inclusionist-deletionist spectrum, I tend toward preservationist--I try to preserve verifiable material per WP:PRESERVE and look for alternatives to deletion for such material per WP:ATD. It may be that this content is best merged into another hydraulics article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)