Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indoor antenna


 * 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. Liz Read! Talk! 05:46, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Indoor antenna

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Sad little article, effectively unsourced and much better though still unsourced coverage in the main article, Television antenna. delete this, redirect to main article. Roxy the dog . wooF 20:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC) Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 23:26, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Radio and Television.  CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Ost (talk) 05:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * DAB or Redirect to Television antenna. I agree that indoor television antenna can be appropriately covered at the suggested target, but the less-specific term may be ambiguous, as there can be other antennas that are indoor and not used for television. —Ost (talk) 18:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Agreement with Ost316, in that a better term may be more helpful to users who are looking for information about indoor antennas. 71.179.1.78 (talk) 14:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Keep. Redirecting to Television antenna is not a suitable solution since indoor antennas for radio reception also exist, particularly the folded dipole constructed from twin-lead which can be nailed to a skirting board.  Particular topics can be redirected to a more general one, but we shouldn't redirect a general topic to a particular one. SpinningSpark 20:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:BEFORE. Being a stub isn't a good reason to delete. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Keep Meets WP:SIGCOV per SpinningSpark's argument. SBKSPP (talk) 01:14, 5 March 2022 (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.