Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Personal mobility

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 no consensus. W.marsh 21:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal mobility

Personal mobility (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) - (View log)

Seems to be a mixture of stuff - reads like a spam email. All of the individual bits are real but all covered by seperate articles, so this hodge-podge serves no purpose. No idea what the purpose of this was. Could be a speedy but I'm not sure if you can use those for articles that have been around as long as this. Fredrick day 23:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• delete: this article seems to be about nothing in particular. grossly unencyclopedic, unsourced and poorly-written. i'd suggest "merge" if i could figure out what parts to merge where. -- frymaster 00:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's not unsourced. It's sourced from Federal Standard 1037C, as the article clearly stated even in its original version. Uncle G 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• That the article contained a 2-year-old copyright violation (63.174.190.3 (talk • contribs) copied and pasted a company's advertisement from its web site into the bottom of the article) is a reason to clean the article up, by removing the advertisement, not a reason to delete the article. See also Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up. Uncle G 00:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Keep The 1037C articles need special handling, which is why there is a special project page just for them. Federal Standard 1037C is a public domain telecommunications dictionary, which was imported into Wikipedia a few years ago and lightly wikified (perhaps by bot, I'm not sure). In many cases the content in these little stub articles is more valuable than it first appears. Sometimes very little editing can turn them into good stubs. Other times, the content is best served by merging several related 1037C stubs into a single larger article. Sometimes they are best redirected to an existing article. Very rarely is AfD deletion an appropriate response. In this case, the article should clearly either be kept, or be merged into Universal Personal Telecommunications. Either way, it appears that the proponent of this AfD was misled by the article's poor formatting and the spam. I ask him to take another look at the article (which I have just wikified) and reconsider whether this AfD still seems appropriate.--Srleffler 03:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • I'd say merge looking at it - into UPT. Anyone know how to shut an AFD? I'll then propose the merge. --Fredrick day 09:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
• Weak keep, but Uncle G, is there a reason that terms like this aren't part of a 1037C glossary or something similar, and a justification for wikifying the contents of an obscure (however widely applied) federal standard, when there are so many federal standards that could be so treated? Just askin'. --Dhartung | Talk 05:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • It's far from being the only case where editors expanded Wikipedia by adding lots of stubs containing public domain content. And one article per entry was simply the way that the editors who imported it chose to import it. As mentioned above, cleaning up the result has been an ongoing (and slowly progressing) project for several years. Feel free to help. Uncle G 13:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • The purpose isn't to produce a glossary article, but to expand Wikipedia's coverage of telecomm in general. The telecomm area of Wikipedia is in general sparse and underedited. Creating lots of stubs from a public domain source forms a "skeleton" of sorts that can be fleshed out later. What is lacking is a few editors with time to spare and solid background in telecomm engineering. Somebody will come along eventually...--Srleffler 17:12, 24 January 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.