Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cam-in-block Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Cam-in-block

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 keep. Merger or redirection is an editorial decision, so this is not an opinion on the appropriateness of these options. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 20:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cam-in-block

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

A somewhat complex nomination, as the article scope is complicated and subject-matter dependent.

This article is a WP:NEO, with a side-order of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. There are two notable sections within this article, one about sidevalve engines (L. T, F heads) and the other about overhead valve (I heads). However there is little real connection between the two groups. The important thing for engine design is the valve position, not the cam position.

"Cam in block" has been used as a term. However it's a back formation from the later overhead cam engines to indicate the previous types. It has no contemporary use for either side or OHV engines. The notability is enough to justify a redir, or as would be far clearer in this case, a disambig, but not an article that would inevitably duplicate and merge two other articles.

This article should be split and merged to the appropriate two sections. If the term has any marginal notability, then we can preserve that much as a disambig between sidevalve and OHV. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Does the fact that it has no contemporary use run afoul of 'notability isn't temporary'? Modern use is significantly less than 50 years ago, granted, but the article does describe the various methods of a cam in block design, and plenty of OR perhaps, but good OR that would benefit from sourcing rather than deletion. Sourcing for these kinds of articles is difficult at best, because it isn't like you see a book on the subject on the NYT best seller list every week, and internet sourcing will be thin, but surely there is a large number of publications printed over the last several decades that can verify the information. (I now live in a town with no library, but I've done similar research in my younger days, they exist.) The topic is notable and verifiable, so the question is, does it serve Wikipedia better to have this as a stand alone article or to redirect. I agree that the article has problems in the source department, but that can be fixed, even if not for a long time. I won't battle over it, and merging and disambig (rather than redirect) admittedly solves some problems, but I think we are throwing the baby out with the bath water. In the end, I understand the nom, but I have to disagree with the conclusion, and think we should Keep and be patient for sourcing. Dennis Brown (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Contemporary" (at least as used here) means "at the same time as the valve designs it describes", as opposed to "current".

Notability isn't temporary and doesn't diminish over time, but this article is instead trying to back-date it. Sidevalve designs could be described as pre-war, overhead valve as post-war to 1970 (very broadly) and the common appearance of OHC designs. The term "cam in block" just doesn't appear before this date. It was never used to describe the designs it refers to, at the time that those designs were the designs of the moment.

The term has enough notability to justify a redir, probably a disambig, or even a short dicdef that states, "The term cam-in-block was coined at the time overhead cams were appearing in common use, as a way to describe the methods preceding it". Anything more than this would be (as it currently stands) duplication of two articles under much better titles, and worse than that a quite unjustified merge of that duplication, as if the cam placement had been their defining factor, rather than their valve placement. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:46, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:01, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I won't labor the issue, but if it had to be changed, I think the disambig would be the better choice as it would combine the dicdef with links to related articles. I think a delete or simple redirect would not adequately explain the term, which might not have been the most common term used, but was common enough that it needs a little explaining before shuttling the person off to another article. Dennis Brown (talk) 01:20, 15 April 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, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:02, 21 April 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, BusterD (talk) 11:56, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This nomination would remove an article with modern terminology about one aspect of engine design, because other articles about previous designs of another aspect of engine design exist. Metaphorically, this removes an article on external hard drives, because there are already articles on Zip drives and ditto drives, and anyway, what's important is a USB flash drive.

Cam placement may well be less crucial to efficiency than valve placement. But it is obviously an efficiency improvement, and worthy of consideration in articles about engine design, or the other types of cams would still be in use instead.

After the overhead cam came into prevalent use, all discussion on prior designs by necessity were destined to be made in terms of comparisons between prior designs and the overhead cam, simply because the professional usage, scholarly terms if you like, had moved on. Unfortunately, the articles on the old designs do not adequately reflect this; the one that does mention overhead cams wants to tout the advantages of the older, 'uncomplicated' designs, in direct contradiction to the flow of innovation and industry design standards: Flathead engine: "The valve gear comprises a camshaft which operates the valves via simple tappets, without any further valvetrain paraphernalia (such as pushrods, rocker arms, overhead valves or overhead camshafts)."

Moreover, the differences between the prior designs and overhead cam are definitive aspects that require mention in the other articles. There is the mention above, for example, but also Pushrod engine, which reads,

"overhead camshaft (OHC) engines benefit substantially from the ability to use multiple valves per cylinder, as well as much greater freedom of component placement, and intake and exhaust port geometry."

This statement puts the importance of the overhead cam in a different light with respect to overhead valves, does it not? Without the overhead cam placement, multiple valves, let alone overhead valves, are impossible.

212 results for "cam-in-block" in Google Books. Anarchangel (talk) 19:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Overhead valve. --Kvng (talk) 03:00, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article was first posted in 2006 when WP rules/guidelines were different than today. Independent source citations are needed to Wikify but the information is accurate and notable historically. Cam-in-block (or "in block camshaft") was how internal combustion engines were made until fairly recently. (From a guy old enough to remember replacing rocker-arm springs to reduce 'valve float'. Google that!) DocTree (talk) 15:53, 8 May 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.