Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call for help/archive1

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and possibly merge into distress call or distress signal. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:21, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Call for help

This is a how-to kind of article. I'm having a hard time placing it into a specific Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not category, but it seems inappropriate for the encyclopedia. Based on the discussions on the talk page, it would seem that I'm not the first person to feel this way. RoySmith 00:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikibooks. This is more or less the kind of thing they want. Fernando Rizo T/C 01:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Redirect to distress signal. Secretlondon is right, it's not worth passing the buck to Wikibooks and Wile E.'s idea is a good one. Fernando Rizo T/C 04:01, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I don't see how this can be an encyclopedia article, and it seems quite a strange article anyway - I don't think we should dump it on wikibooks. Secretlondon 01:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - There's some encyclopedic information here, but much of it is redundant. See: Emergency telephone number and [[--128.118.40.77 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)Distress signal]]. -PlainSight 02:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Redirect to distress signal. Wile E. Heresiarch 03:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep Remember, Wikipedia isn't paper. A little redundancy isn't such a bad thing. Someone put a lot of work into it. (If you insist on changing it, please redirect instead of deleting, so that the history isn't lost.) --Matt Yeager 08:08, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep per Matt Yeager. --GraemeL ^(talk) 11:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep as per Matt Yeager Klonimus 09:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. one of the more interesting wikipedia articles. 193.77.153.149 12:18, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep but I think it and distress signal should merge and redirect to distress call and be revised to be less of a how-to article (the US Coast Guard requires...; the International Red Cross recommends...; the RCMP has assigned..., etc.) so I think it should stay one way or another. Assuming the consensus is to keep, I will propose this and conduct it. --Tysto 14:57, 2005 August 23 (UTC)
• Keep. Wikimedia can afford a few extra bytes to store the article. While it might not be included in other encyclopedias, perhaps it should be. --128.118.40.77 19:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• keep Trollderella 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep D. J. Bracey (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. It looks at least somewhat useful and several articles link to it. Optichan 22:13, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
• keep' please seriously this is really why we have wikipedia why in the world would you ever want to erase this of all things Yuckfoo
• Keep Rewrite to less of a "how-to"... however article is actually mildly interesting --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 10:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
• Keep' Disclaimer: Contributor to this page. Check the number of edits - people have already voted with their fingers that this is worthwhile. I would be in favor of collating all the first aid/CPR stuff into one place (a WikiBook, or just an organized set of WikiPages), and moving material around appropriately. But that is a big task. I would not be in favor of deleting the how to stuff. Adding historical basis and rationale would be more encyclopedic, then we would have how to call for help, AND how those conventions came about. Wrolf 21:43, 24 August 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.