Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IC-92AD


 * 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. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

IC-92AD

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

Borderline speedy for spam, IMO Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 18:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Deleteper nom, spam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gr8launch (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I would love some feedback to remove any concern that this is spam. This article does not meet the established reasons for deletion. It does not contain copyright material, contains no vandalism or inappropriate redirects, contains no advertising/spam as it contains extensive DSTAR information that links to the DSTAR wiki (if this is spam then the Icom proprietary DSTAR protocol page would be too?),and contains extensive citation. I've built this article out of necessity, as the information does not exist in this format anywhere online. I've spent a few hours going over the Wiki protocol for a great article, and extensively followed the examples with accompanying citations for all references. I've spent over two weeks collecting information on the DSTAR and Icom IC-92AD radio from many sources. I assure you, this topic is of keen interest in amateur radio circles, and there is precious little information on the topic. This article is the culmination of weeks of research. Please let me know anything at all that I might change to make this a great fit into the Wikipedia. I'm always up for feedback! I have received many local accolades in the DSTAR community for providing the concise information for this radio. Please help make this article a valuable contribution. I do not work for ICOM, nor do I receive any compensation in any way for the publication of this information. Just trying to remove frustration in the DSTAR community.Jeffrey.d.miller (talk) 21:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Jeffrey. Since I nominated the article, I at least owe you an explanation. Currently the article reads like an advertisement disguised as an article. Specifically, it is full of "sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website", which makes it deletable under the argument that Wikipedia is not the place to advertise (#5), and statements like "However, many users new to digital radio (D-STAR)need much more information to sufficiently understand and program the radio for use on the D-STAR repeater network", which suggests the article is intended at least partly as a user's guide. If you think this is a notable product that deserves an article on wikipedia, and want to bring it in-line with the Wikipedia guidelines for inclusion, I would suggest contacting people over at WikiProject Amateur Radio for feedback or request for help on the D-STAR and Amateur radio talk pages. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Also, if the article is deleted, you can ask to get the article "userfied" (that is, moved to User:Jeffreyd.miller/IC-92AD so you can resolve issues and recreate the article at a later date. Headbomb {{{sup|ταλκ}}κοντριβς – WP Physics} 14:31, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, JForget  22:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.

 Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 00:39, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep and fix by removing over-detailed material and find references. The nom does not seem to have taken WP:BEFORE into account. If none can be found, then reconsider.  DGG ( talk ) 04:26, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.


 * Keep, repair, and cite. The Weak Willed 12:53, 19 August 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.