Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/History of disruptive technology within communications


 * 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   delete. Cirt (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

History of disruptive technology within communications

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

The characterization of these (selective) technologies as "disruptive" is not support by the citations, and is WP:OR & WP:POV. (Besides the printing press was pretty disruptive in its day....so was the telephone...so was...) Zim Zala Bim  talk  05:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - Looks to me like an attack on VoIP to me, looks to be mainly composed of WP:OR. Res2216firestar 05:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete. Took some time to think this one through. While the article idea and related topics are certainly interesting, this article simply does not meet Wikipedia's core policy of verifiability, and like the nominator said, it has rather loud overtones of original research and opinion. If sources can be found that specifically state that this technology is a "disruptive technology" and shows the information in the table, no problem. As it is, it's all synthesis. Tan   &#124;   39  05:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Note to nominator: Your parenthetical statement about other technologies being disruptive makes no sense in the context of this article - see disruptive technology. It's a perfectly acceptable industry term. Tan   &#124;   39  05:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment I think we can safely say that Internet Protocol is a disruptive technology. Still, not the point - It's too selective an article title. Sourced and attributed as disruptive technologies is different, but that's not this article's title (or presentation). Delete and merge content to disruptive technology? That article has citation issues too, incidentally. - Ddawkins73 (talk) 15:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete sources don't really support the claim of the article that these are disruptive technologies. The article would be better if it covered existing technologies that had been disrupted, but given the current article is future facing, I'm calling for delete.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:45, 17 February 2009 (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.