Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cabling and Connections


 * 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 of the debate was no consensus. W.marsh 00:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Cabling and Connections
Nothing links here. Page is given no context. Articles already exist on all the subjects. I would understand if someone was trying to compile all the ways in which we can connect etc. However, I feel this falls short of doing so. Lsjzl 15:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Weak Delete. The info seems clear enough, just not terribly important. Lsjzl, you mention you'd support keeping if the article tried to compile all the ways to connect, and I agree. My "weak" delete comes from the feeling that maybe this article needs more time? Right now, though, it sounds like notes someone has taken on a topic being studied in school. To the author: 1) add a 1-2 sentence intro about the topic in general an its importance. 2) Introduce sections that show the range of possible connections. That might change me to a keep. Inter lingua talk 16:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment This needs a better title and I believe all the information exists on other pages. Ace of Sevens 15:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete Per Interlingua. ILovePlankton 19:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 *  AFD relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.  Please add new discussions below this notice. Thanks, Deathphoenix ʕ 19:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete This is just a hotch-potch of concepts that are better covered elsewhere in WP. For example Electromagnetic interference deals with RFI etc. Anything useful can be extracted and added to the appropriate article. TerriersFan 19:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong keep. Anyone new to the subject would find this article educational. It could use expansion, but it's certainly better than most stubs out there. The Editrix 19:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep per above. Could be improved. --JJay 03:03, 25 June 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.