Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabling and Connections (second nomination)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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. —Quarl (talk) 2006-12-27 02:43Z

[edit] Cabling and Connections

Cabling and Connections (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

According to me, this article must be deleted:

  1. The main topic of the article is unclear.
  2. The article talks about too many topics to be in only one article (about six different topics).
  3. Also, these topics are too different to be in only one article, even if the article is improved in the future, sooner or later, it must be split in many articles.
  4. That is the point, more accurate articles already exist about all the topics in this article (see Cable, Computer network, Radio Frequency Interference, optical fibers, Wireless, Electrical conductivity and more) So this is like a list of few different topics a bit related together.
  5. Of course this article could be improved but it seems like nobody works on this article. The only significative edit is the first one (look at the History) which is also the only one edit by its editor (see User:Bensrob). According to me, if a list of these topics is really useful, wikipedians who used to work on articles related to cabling or connections should work on it.

Maybe these arguments are not very good, i'm a bit new about deletion criteria. Thanks for listening. Frédérick Lacasse 16:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

  • Delete. Your arguments are good, here are some more with the requisite acronym salad... There are no sources cited, so the article violates WP:NOR, so there's nothing to merge. Also, WP:NOT a cabling instruction manual. Sandstein 17:33, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - the article title doesn't have anything to do with its contents as far as I can see. Nowhere is the term "cabling and connections" even explained in the whole article, and instead various other terms (which have much better articles) are explained. Very weird article, and Google didn't give me any more leads about "cabling and connections" either. Jayden54 17:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now what this article is about (I thought it was some company or something else). Anyway, Sandstein nails all the important policies, completely original research and a pointless article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jayden54 (talk • contribs) 17:36, 22 December 2006 (UTC).
  • Delete. A rather remarkable conglomeration of jargon adding up to remarkably little. I'd say that it needs sources, but I'm not sure what they would be shoring up... Robertissimo 19:03, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete - this appears to be a grab bag of loosely associated definitions aggregated together into one article, but each item already has a much better article. -- Whpq 19:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete per nominator -- lucasbfr talk 07:55, 26 December 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.