Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epistructural tension

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The result was Nomination withdrawn. The article has been merged to Dehydron. It may discussed on the relevant article's talk page whether the merge it appropriate or not and at WP:RFD if the redirect is appropriate or not. (non-admin closure) Anupmehra -Let's talk! 10:12, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Epistructural tension

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

Vanity article started by a known sock puppet of Ariel Fernandez, who introduced this concept. At least one of the secondary links establishing importance (ref. 3) is broken; the other is merely a perspective on the newly published Fernandez article and does not include the term "epistructural tension" at all. Content overlaps significantly with dehydron and if not deleted outright, it should likely just be merged in there as a subsection. Bueller 007 (talk) 08:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator Bueller 007 (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
*Let's just merge this into dehydron - I don't think we need to go through a whole AfD. Want to withdraw this and let's just do that? Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure. I'm fine with that. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  - Great, please close this discussion, and I will go ahead and do the merge. Jytdog (talk) 16:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    - As a non-admin, I do not know how to do this. Bueller 007 (talk) 16:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Obviously non-notable self-promotion. I wouldn't bother taking the time to merge. Delete with prejudice. NickCT (talk) 15:07, 3 December 2014 (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.