Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile phone safety


 * 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. (non-admin closure) JudgeRM   (talk to me)  01:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Mobile phone safety

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Procedural nomination per the result of Miscellany for deletion/Mobile phone safety. result: keep. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 12:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Neither:
 * a) A dab (all entries are WP:PTM or guide/howto angle rather than ambiguous titles)
 * b) nor a WP:BROADCONCEPT as one entry is about driving safety not mobile phone. (nom moved here) Widefox ; talk 12:24, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Ping editors User:Rajni rethesh, User:NJA, User:Malcolmxl5, User:Dcirovic Widefox ; talk 13:54, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Acceptable BROADCONCEPT article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * SmokeyJoe (the problem with a BROADCONCEPT) is that one entry is driving safety, not mobile phone safety, so it's not obvious to me what the scope is? Mobile phone in the second article is a driving distraction, so the topic is driving not safety of mobile phones. Playing Pokemon Go is also a risk whilst crossing the road etc, but is that "mobile phone safety" or "pedestrian safety" broad concept? Widefox ; talk 13:51, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete Almost nothing there. Verges on a speedy. South Nashua (talk) 15:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep per SmokeyJoe. Ceosad (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Can you elaborate please, for instance what the topic or scope of the broadconcept is? ...driving safety? Widefox ; talk 01:10, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the onus is on your to substantiate your case for deletion. The title is a used phrase, and it is used to mean either of the two listed topics.  It is not PTM.  I think it is exactly what DABCONCEPT is.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I expanded my answer a) as a dab - Doc James below b) to SmokeyJoe above for the option b) as a BC where "safety" of what is the crux, the risk is from driving whilst distracted, so it is "driving safety" as a topic (similarly, driver rubbernecking isn't part of a broad concept "looking safety").  Widefox ; talk 12:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep Not seeing the issue. Mobile phone safety can refer to two different things so what is wrong with a disambig? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:45, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As dab entries, "Mobile phone safety" as strictly interpreted per WP:D / WP:MOSDAB... The articles don't have alternative, bolded titles "Mobile phone safety". It's one or two PTMs, arguably the first one could be a synonym, so a good candidate for this being redirect. The second is "Mobile phones and driving safety" is a subtopic of driving safety, not synonymous with the ambiguous term "Mobile phone safety" so is a PTM, leaving a dab with a primary topic and one other - a WP:TWODABS. Widefox ; talk 12:14, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep. Regardless of what could "properly" be referred to as "mobile phone safety", a user typing this phrase can be looking for either of the two articles listed. A case could be made for redirecting to Mobile phone safety and leaving a hatnote there, but I don't think it's a good idea: the convenience of the couple of readers who type this phrase every day isn't balanced by the added inconvenience (because of the hatnote occupying the primary spot of the article) for the thousand or so users who view that article. – Uanfala (talk) 02:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * as a) a dab, agree scope isn't important but I'd say it's got a primary topic TWODABS (above). Widefox ; talk 02:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * As discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Disambiguation, while these things are not necessary, or encouraged, when they happen there is no imperative to remove them. Their usefulness is a grey zone, and they do no harm.  The biggest advantage of deletion I think is that entering the phrase int the search box will lead to pretty good search engine results .  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * (offtopic: in that proposal discussion I detail why they can do harm, so the assertion that they do no harm is no conclusion to a still ongoing unclosed discussion) This dab is the end-result of editing away a poor article. We're left with a poor dab that isn't a good candidate for a BC, and as you say, the search is a better option when deleted. Widefox ; talk 04:00, 26 November 2016 (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.