Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/How television works


 * 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. No clear consensus for merge, so this should be discussed on the article's talk page.  So Why  14:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

How television works

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

I'm not sure what to say, but this article just doesn't seem right for some reason. Not a good format? Not a good title? Redundant to other pages? ViperSnake151 Talk  02:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge, to Analogue television or rename to Analogue television technology and improve.--Grahame (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Weak Keep or Merge appears to have some credible value, but maybe as part of Television and not a page of its own.-SpacemanSpiff (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge to an appropriate page, such as Analog television. JJL (talk) 03:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Neutral My biggest problem is the title of the page, which if the article is kept should absolutely be changed. Otherwise, I have no opinion on the content. Doc StrangeMailbox Logbook 04:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Will everyone please read WP:NOT. -- The Legendary   Sky Attacker  04:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest that you read Deletion policy. Deletion is not a substitute for using the article renaming tool that you yourself have.  Having "how" in the title does not magically make an article instructional rather than informational.  And things that one has the tools to fix onesself are not problems to hand off to administrators and wash one's hands of.  Uncle G (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep. This is the vaguest deletion nomination I have seen for a loong time, ('his article just doesn't seem right for some reason') and quite an impressive array of evasive words/comments (appears, seems, 'I have no opinion on the content').  Incidentally, a week or two ago,  I was in dire need of information on analogue TV (of which I knew very little) and I read most of Wikipedia's technical television articles.  My thoughts were that they had grown incrementally in an un-ocordinated manner - i.e. the  usual Wikipedia way.  The content is there however, absolutely salvageable, but it is in need of an expert with a good overview, with the necessary time to boldly reorganize the info there.  Haphazard myopic delete/merge proposals by people with little specialist insight will only make matters worse.  The best action at the present is to wait for this expert intervention.  Tagging the article may improve the well-being of the tagger but wont help locate any expert.  When the right person sees the articles as a passerby, sHe will be frustrated and fix them - the Wikipedia way. Power.corrupts (talk) 07:59, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep Doesn't seem to be a copyvio, and has good information. It is a problem re WP:NOTGUIDE, and it has to be renamed and cleaned, but is worthwhile. I wouldn't merge to Analog television because that would be too messy; this topic (when made a little more encyclopedic) is a useful addition. Johnuniq (talk) 08:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Rename to "Principles of analogue television".  Getting rid of "How to" which appears to be its ownly real problem -- it is clearly not a DIY article.  Collect (talk) 13:35, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Analog television, don't understand why there are separate articles. Drawn Some (talk) 13:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge with Analog television. There's no reason these should be separate articles. Tim  meh  ! ( review me ) 14:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment AfD is not the right forum for merge discussions. Power.corrupts (talk) 14:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could interpret "merge" as "delete but move the information somewhere else". Drawn Some (talk) 15:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It's stuff like this that caused people to suggest that we make this "Articles for discussion" ViperSnake151 Talk  15:36, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Articles should not be brought here unless the nominator thinks they ought to be deleted. Drawn Some (talk) 15:49, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, you are the nominator. Drawn Some (talk) 15:50, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Keep and rename but the introduction is wrong, the very first broadcast TV systems didn't work this way, since they used mechanical components and required synchronization. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 07:24, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear IP, your edit history indicates that you're quite WP sawy, couldn't we incite you into bringing a little order into this article series?
 * 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.