Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BS143
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was delete. Joyous 02:51, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)
[edit] BS143
Nothing but a dicdef, and one that probably could be lumped in on the British Standard page, or a page about power cables. ral315 19:17, Feb 4, 2005 (UTC)
I saw the BS143 in a wiring document, and wanted to know what it was -- surely wikipedia can do that sort of thing? (BS 4343 and BS 1363 are similar devices with full pages) Putting it on British Standard page would be like putting BS 6008 on the British Standard page
Delete - blatantly incorrect definition. Ojw 19:43, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete. BS143 is about pipe fittings, not low-voltage cables, see this product catalog and there are several other similar available via Google. But what puzzles me a bit is that the now unsigned comment above, justifying the article, is by User:Ojw too, who is also the article's author, and has now voted to delete the page. Curious. Andrewa 09:29, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
-
- Not so much "unsigned" as "expanded to include the following paragraph" - sorry for any confusion. Anyway if we can define it, then wikipedia is a reference guide, and it would be nice to find out what such things are by searching on wikipedia (the alternative being a big payment to look at the standard) - if something claims to be a "standard" surely it belongs in wikipedia, same as the hundreds of pages we have for web standards? If we can't define it, then that's where my delete vote came from - it's incorrect as it stands, so if it can't be corrected then delete. Maybe we could add a topic on the helpdesk to see if anyone knows the detaiils (or lives close to a BS library) Ojw 20:33, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, aside from the content problems, topic doesn't seem to be encyclopedic. Wyss 22:38, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- Delete, dicdef. Bart133 (t) 02:05, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.