Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile number portability


 * 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. Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Mobile number portability

 * – ( View AfD View log )

This article has had major issues ever since it first appeared, and they have never been addresses. Fundamentally, it is simply a statement of the obvious (mobile number portability is portability of mobile numbers, well, duh) and adds a pile of original research from primary sources. Guy (Help!) 11:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep plenty of coverage in the Wall Street Journal for the US implementation is 2003 and how it would affect the economics of the industry. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:49, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That's support for a date in the US. Now how about reliable independent sources for the subject of "mobile number portability"? Nobody disputes it exists, but what we have here is a personal essay plus some primary sourced lists of dates, which violates core policy. Guy (Help!) 16:50, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Keep, this is a concept that regulatory agencies pay a lot of attention to (e.g. OFCOM in the UK), and I'm sure there's legislation or other official sources to support this guidance. The article needs a major rewrite, and I suspect that the by-country listing of porting times is bit of a waste of time (apart from changing in real time). JFW &#124; T@lk  19:09, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions.  -- • Gene93k (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep. The concept as such is sufficiently notable, it's not original research per se. The article does need some cleanup. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 13:32, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * keep why delete? seems informative and accurate wle — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlexxx (talk • contribs)
 * Strong keep: AfD is not, as the nom implies, some sort of stronger form of cleanup tag. This article includes useful information, even if the prose at the top needs work. Could probably re-write it in less time than this AfD process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2011 (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.