Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IsoEthernet
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 Keep and rename to IEEE 802.9. —Quarl (talk) 2007-03-11 00:33Z
[edit] IsoEthernet
Article is a stub, which is written in jargon and which no users seems able to expand to make coherent or informative. The technology is outdated, and no longer (if ever) notable. A Google search returns under 750 results, with at least 15 being a duplicate of the article found on Wikipedia. The technology is no longer commonly used, and deals with the concatenation of ISDN data lines, which have not been economically-feasible for several years. The article cannot be developed, is not notable, and is out of common usage. Voice your opinion in the proper location. Freedomlinux 03:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Strong delete, as concept is not notable and cannot be developed. Freedomlinux 03:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC) (as nominator)
-
- Maintain and organize under IEEE 802.0
- May we treat this as nomination withdrawn? If so I'll try to start work on the article. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- While I do not find the article incredibly useful, as per User:bpmullins, it should be maintained because of its status as an IEEE standard. At the time of nomination I was not aware of this, and now I agree that the article should be moved to IEEE 802.9 and rewritten. So, that is a nomination withdrawn, unless there is a preference to delete and start fresh at the new name. Freedomlinux 04:20, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- May we treat this as nomination withdrawn? If so I'll try to start work on the article. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:30, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
- Maintain and organize under IEEE 802.0
- Request for guideline - anyone have a guideline on archival IEEE standards or the like? /Blaxthos 05:55, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Move to IEEE 802.9. Even defunct standards should get historical mention, although there won't be much to say about this one. (Current IEEE 802 standards are available here.) -- BPMullins | Talk 16:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merge/rewrite per BPMullins ffm yes? 21:10, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- Move to IEEE 802.9 per BPMullins. A question, however: should it be 802.9 or 802.9a? -- Black Falcon 18:06, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
- IEEE 802.9, I believe. The links under IEEE 802 are to the working groups, not to the standards that the WGs generated. -- BPMullins | Talk 20:05, 8 March 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.
