Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightpath


 * 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) —  Za  wl  14:49, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Lightpath

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

There is no more than one existing Wikipedia article to which that word or phrase might be expected to lead. — Za  wl  16:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC) ---

Prior to the latest edits content edit the page was a valid redirect page. Therefore I contest speedy deletion is appropriate whilst reversion to the previous version is possible. There may be other content improvement options.Djm-leighpark (talk) 16:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Baby miss  fortune 17:09, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Isn't optical path the primary topic here? – Uanfala (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * No ... optical path is something a little sort of different. To start with the primary issue here is we should not delete the article because Lightpath is a valid name and pre-existing redirect for the Nelson Street Cycleway and it would seem more appropriate to role back to that rather than delete the page and lose that redirect.  My best understanding is 'Lightpath' is specifically used in fibre optic communications to indicate two nodes  do not have any intervening Optoelectronics .. which would slow the signal.  It you search for articles on wikipedia containing 'lightpath(s)' you'll wind quite a few and there is a some of minimal definition on Wikitionary.  My best understanding is we shouldn't we relating lightpath to optical path, though a lightpath is sort of optical path.Djm-leighpark (talk) 18:37, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * A wikipedia search comes up with plenty of articles about microscopy topics where optical path is clearly the intended meaning. Maybe the dab page should delineate the generic from the fibre optics meanings? – Uanfala (talk) 19:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:Uanfala Hmmm ... you may have a valid point. It may or may not be that in microscopy the term should have a space, light path.  In optical network use it is one word lightpath.  Wikitionary goes with the optical network defintion: lightpath.  It may be a Lightpath (optical network) article is possible however it might simply end up on Afd or a merge request.  I think wikipedia should and will likely end up up some form of dab here rather than a redirect onto the cycleway.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a dab page, as I've scraped together two more entries (and there's an album by a band of questionable notability). Whether there's a primary topic is a separate matter. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep as a dab page, I've redone the primary topic which might have been contentious as an entry to a (newly created) appropriate article to help smooth any issues.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep: Valid dab page. Pam  D  09:51, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep the now better page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:33, 2 February 2018 (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.