Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missed call


 * 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. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 01:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Missed call

 * – (View AfD) (View log)

Seems to fail WP:NOT, is essentially social commentary and no references are given for the major assertions presented. Orderinchaos 09:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Just a junk article, not notable. Jmlk  1  7  09:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep. I don't know guys, this thing is very prevalent in our culture. See . I don't know for other cultures though. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 10:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Could possibly be mentioned in an article on Telecommunications in India? Twenty Years 15:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Philippines is not India.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep as above. I don't see why we should not keep this. .. Elmao 10:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, there are bazillions of articles on cell phone etiquette out there to source this. I think the money-saving angle is only one part of it. --Dhartung | Talk 11:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * ...which could easily be covered in the article entitled Telecommunications in India. Twenty Years 15:57, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep, i added enough links to merit inclusion. it is not just a social commentary, it is a business, revenue and profit headache too. the apex body of indian telecom operators, coai has even instituted studies for tracking revenue loss. pls revisit the article to see the new links. Ankur Jain 12:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: hate to add this, but i believe there is a distinct anglo-american bias to article editing. just because you guys don't know about the widespread use of this thing, probably never having visited india or africa etc., that does not mean it does not exist. there is world beyond your countries.Ankur Jain 12:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Reply: I'd say you shouldn't have gone there. While systemic bias exists, that doesn't mean that anyone who criticizes an article you like is doing so because of systemic bias.  The article in question is an unsourced, misnamed, poorly-written stub of no present reliable use to any of our readers.  Fix that, and then see if people still want to delete it before accusing them of bias, please. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If its so big, why dont i see any mention of it here? Twenty Years 15:52, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not Akashic records. Developing countries don't have a strong presence in the net so fewer contributors can represent them, just because you can't find much of it on-line doesn't mean that it isn't notable. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:52, 8 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Rename, cleanup and source, or delete: Aside from lack of refs (which I believe can be found; I've seen enough evidence that this is a real phenomenon), the problem is mainly that the article is about a specific phenomenon, not about missed calls in general. Every time I fail to answer my phone (cell or otherwise) then that is a "missed call" but it is not what is being described here as a missed call. I do not consider myself knowledgeable enough on the topic to suggest a better name for it off the top of my head.  Adding links to other WP articles does not do anything to "merit inclusion". If it does not have at least one reliable source by the time this AfD closes, it should be deleted, per WP:V, and that has nothing whatsoever to do with American bias.  If the phenomenon is notable, someone will create a reliably sourced article on it later. It also needs copyediting, as it reads like it was written in an e-mail or something, i.e. it has an inappropriate informal tone and imprecise, ambiguous wording. PS: Agree with Dhartung that there is likely more than one rationale behind calling someone and hanging up before they answer so that they call you back. —  SMcCandlish  &#91;talk&#93; &#91;cont&#93;  ‹(-¿-)› 14:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Ankur Jain 15:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Apologies for seeming to accuse. I take back the words on "bias". Other points noted - missed call is a wide word - includes a call missed accidentally too. may be we can call it "pitiful call" :)
 * Keep. I expected yet another dictionary definition, this time for "missed call", but was delighted to *GASP* find an actual encyclopedic article.   Bur nt sau ce  22:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment So by encyclopedic article, you mean poorly referenced, poorly written and failing notability? Twenty Years 15:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment. Poorly referenced? (newspapers and Reuters poor refs?), poorly written (now that's just hitting below the belt, still that could be fixed by cleanup but not Afd) and failing notability (something notable on developing countries not notable at all?) -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
 * shall we now decide to keep this page and delete the "deletion tag" on top? Ankur Jain 14:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I'd hold off until consensus is reached. There's no harm in waiting another few days :) SQL(Query Me!) 07:38, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Generally, this sort of thing should be merged into another article. But, the lack of any sort of encyclopedic information seems to deter me from posting a merge. Some here have argued that its a business/profit making machine, if so, its lack of coverage certainly proves it, if some are to be found, this could easily be merged into telecommunications, as it wouldnt exactly merit an article on its own. If its prevelant in one culture, then woopdy-do, add it to the telecommunications article. Long story short: Its junk. Twenty Years 15:48, 6 October 2007 (UTC)
 * It is prevalent in more than one culture (not a good merge into India article alone) and just because it isn't notable in your country it is considered junk. -- Lenticel  ( talk ) 00:24, 8 October 2007 (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.