Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bifurcated channel signaling

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 delete. The only claimed source isn't. If it's real terminology, it's obsolete and will never be more than a dicdef. Opabinia regalis 04:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bifurcated channel signaling

Bifurcated channel signaling (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Dicdef, I don't see much room for expansion. It's been here since March 2005 and there has been nothing added since. Contested prod. Sable232 16:06, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

• Keep or Merge. Nobody has said there's anything wrong with the information. Might or might deserve a separate article. I contested the deletion proposal, writing "This article is a valid stub. It can grow beyond a dictionary definition. The solution is to expand it, not to delete it." Wikipedia allows stubs (there are about a million) and has no deadline. Fg2 02:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. It is not clear that this term has *any* Google hits (as a fully quoted string of three words), except those derived from Wikipedia. Probably it's an obsolete terminology. No need for us to have an article on it; it could be misleading to our readers if we offer the term but can provide no context. EdJohnston 20:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
• Delete or Merge, but with what? The definition appears to be correct but without more of an article to clothe it with not much can be learned from it. Flakeloaf 22:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This AfD has been relisted to better generate consensus. AmiDaniel (talk) 22:40, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

• Merge a huge number of similar jargon nano-articles sitting in Category:Telecommunications stubs into the Glossary of telecommunications, since they are copied from glossaries of Federal Standard 1037C and MIL-STD-188, as these nano-articles say. `'mikka 23:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Some of them are stubs with potential for expansion. The FS 1073C articles require a more discriminatory approach than that. Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up has been a slowly on-going project for over a year, now. I suggest that editors read read the prior discussion to familiarize themselves with the whole issue before commenting. Uncle G 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• Fg2 is quite right that we don't delete stubs simply because they haven't been expanded yet. We only delete stubs if there is no possibility for expansion of the article beyond perpetual stub status. Furthermore, as stated, if editors want to deal with the FS 1073C articles, I suggest reading Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up first. Blanket mergers and blanket deletion nominations are not the best ways to proceed.

  However, having said that, this is not an FS 1073C article. The article claims that it is sourced from FS 1073C. But I've just checked the two on-line versions linked to from Federal Standard 1037C#External links, and this concept is not listed. Several different searches lead me to no other sources.

  It's worth noting that many of the the FS 1073C articles were created en bloc by 213.253.40.156 (talk • contribs) in 2002. This article was created by Wanton creation (talk • contribs) in 2005, and is that person's sole contribution. It is possible that it is hoax.

  Therefore: This is a stub that has no (valid) sources, and for which no sources can be found after a reasonable search. It cannot be expanded beyond perpetual stub status; the only sources that it cites prove to be false; and, looking, I can find no alternative sources to use. Therefore this is both an unexpandable stub and unverifiable, and per Wikipedia:Deletion policy that means delete. Uncle G 00:45, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

  • Thank you for taking a closer attention and investigating. Now that you suggested a potential vandalism, I did some more nosing around and see that the article was created by a slight tweaking of the Separate channel signaling. So I am changing my vote. `'mikka 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
• delete. `'mikka 02:33, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

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.