Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Facility (telecommunications)


 * 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. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 03:05, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Facility (telecommunications)

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is nothing but a DICTDEF and has no promise of evolving beyond that point. Briefly attempted rescue but realized it would prove fruitless. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC) 
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.   -- &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 11:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure. See also Centralized discussion/Federal Standard 1037C clean up. Deletion is often not the answer for these articles.  Uncle G (talk) 13:38, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Comment Hmm. I was unaware of that at the time of nomination. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 13:59, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * It's a long-term cleanup effort. But the important point is that most of the articles left are cleanup targets, not deletion.  We already picked the low-hanging deletion fruit back in the early months of the project. As for how such things can be cleaned up, take a look at what I did with  and, which were two other FS 1037C articles, that I dealt with by refactoring, renaming, merging, and expanding. Uncle G (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Even though it's structured like a defition, with a little bit of effort editors could turn this into an encyclopedic article. --Amwestover (talk|contrib) 15:11, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep. Dicdef, yes, but not unsalvageable. --  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 01:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep - Could easily be turned into a reasonably good article if people work at it. &mdash; neuro(talk) 01:41, 18 December 2008 (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.