Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estimated time of arrival


 * 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 as per unanimous positive consensus and no calls for deletion outside of the nominator. The time for this non-administrative closure has arrived. And Adoil Descended (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Estimated time of arrival

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

This article appears to be more suitable for Wiktionary. Past discussion on the articles talk page did not reveal any clear path to expand this topic to encyclopedic scope. Dfeuer (talk) 00:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - There's a fair bit of potential for this article to expound upon the study of ETAs: methodological insights, computational algorithms, interrelated logistical effects, and various other phenomenology. —  C M B J   02:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't all of those relate more to the various contexts in which ETAs appear, rather than ETAs themselves? ETA=ETD+estimated time in transit. ETD might relate to how long it takes a hard disk to spin up, whether a previous flight arrived on time, or how long it takes to manufacture a widget from parts that may or may not be available. Transit time may depend on bus contention, network latency, cargo ship schedules, or storms. I'm not really seeing how ETA really serves to tie these things together. Can you suggest a source that provides such a framework? Dfeuer (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps a better point for me to make: I think having an article on ETA is like having an article on "less than or equal to". Each has a place in one or more encyclopedia articles, but I don't see how either can stand on its own.Dfeuer (talk) 08:05, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We have less than or equal to, note, as well as ≤. Uncle G (talk) 11:41, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * less than or equal to is a redirect, and ≤ is a disambiguation page, each linking to a substantial topic. Dfeuer (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep The nomination seems to suppose that we are required to expand articles to some particular size. That is not our policy.  Enough is as good as a feast and so it is quite common for entries in other encyclopedias to be quite small. Warden (talk) 12:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't suppose that, but when I nominated this article for deletion, it contained a definition of a term and a list of ways the term is used. According to WP:NOT, more is needed. Someone has since expanded the article with a giant list of patents having to do with ETA calculation in various contexts. Perhaps I should suggest we instead rename this article to "List of patents on devices for calculating estimated times of arrival", and link to the definition of "estimated time of arrival" in Wiktionary? Dfeuer (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions.  • Gene93k (talk) 12:06, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Seems reasonable to have this common term of usage in the encyclopedia. Someone not knowing what ETA meant would be well served by this article.--MLKLewis (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * According to WP:NOT, this is not an acceptable reason. Dfeuer (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - I'm inclusionist. Enough said. Nixdorf (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - Easily passes WP:GNG just with the references already in the article. Needs some work, but that doesn't warrant deletion. - SudoGhost 04:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep is a complex concept, not just a dicdef. This article is way too long to appear in a dictionary. A mathematical formula goes into determining this. Even if this article was short, it would still belong in an encyclopedia as a stub. Wiktionary is not a place for short Wikipedia articles. Dew Kane (talk) 23:17, 15 July 2012 (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.