Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Etymology of ham radio

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 of the debate was keep. moink 19:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Etymology of ham radio

Appears to be abandoned by its creator. As it stands, it contains too little content, I think, to survive as a stub. Mild delete. --Nlu (talk) 11:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Merge with Amateur Radio. KrazyCaley/That's Krazy Talk 12:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. I think Amateur Radio covers it well enough. PJM 12:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Amateur Radio. Lbbzman 16:28, 9 February 2006 (UTC) Keep based on Anonym1ty's expansion. Lbbzman 18:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Expand Which I did. As they say, be bold. The whole reason this article was started is because of the amount of info in the Amateur radio article was making the article too heavy, and I (and others) don't believe that Amateur radio was covering this adequately. the whole problem was that we would keep getting more and more theories that were not true in the Amateur radio article. All the article says now is that the origins are obscure. People want to know more and this article as a stand alone article is the only way we can assure the integrity of the Amateur radio article. These theories were part of the problem with taking up too much space. There are many many other theories that can be added to expand this article. The AfD should now be removed. Anonym1ty 17:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Expand I agree. There is so much more that can be put on this page. I, for one, would like to see more here rather than less. --66.93.197.187 18:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

• Expand - Anonym1ty has done a fine job adding to the article and the AfD note needs to be removed. Just what is the policy on "nominating" a candidate for deletion? This article was barely 3 weeks old before someone decided it had to go. There are many articles that haven't been touched in 21 days but that doesn't mean they need to be deleted!! -- N5UWY/9 - plaws 20:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep and continue to expand. Clearly able to survive as an article. Adrian Lamo ·· 21:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep This article is going to have a lower standard for inclusion of information since it is so speculative a topic. Having it inamateur radio would cause information that is highly speculative to be in an article that is very different. Having two articles would allow an editorial standard appropriate to each article. Also this article could carry a lot of information that would unbalance the size of each subsection of amateur radio if it were there. Kd4ttc 22:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep I wish I had had more time after creating the article to expand it, but I am a fourth year B.Sc. student and my time is very limited when midterm exams loom (the last of which I have to write in 2 hours time.) I stronly agree that this topic should remain independent of the Amateur radio article. Instead of AfD, this article should carry a warning about it's speculative nature (although this could also be accomplished in the introductory paragraph. --Andrewjuren 21:11, 10 February 2006 (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.