Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio priority controversy


 * 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 merge/redirect or de-fork or whatever, it's done now. W.marsh 18:36, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Radio priority controversy
Tagged for speedy with the comment "Duplicate of content of Marconi%27s_role_in_the_history_of_radio which needs to be moved back to 'Invention of Radio'"; actually that's history of radio, I think. Either way this appears to be a POV fork but not a speedy candidate. There may be text worth merging, so this is not an open and shut case. Guy 10:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep - see the AFD for a related article, Tesla's role in the history of radio.  Yomangani talk 10:42, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete - Fork created by an editor against wishes of other editors in the topic it was forked from.  See edit history as well as Talk:Marconi%27s_role_in_the_history_of_radio which was titled "Invention of Radio" until same editor moved it and created several pages.  Currently attempting to get that page moved back, with this content merged back into it, but same editor created a new "Invention of Radio" article and I don't want to lose the editing history by copying content.  Sparkhead  11:20, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment I've restored the title of the original Invention Of Radio article and content. This can be deleted as the same content is there.  Sparkhead  12:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

As I edited these pages to:-
 * Keep. Please no deletion while these pages are under dispute. See Requests for arbitration.
 * Tesla's role in the history of radio was a full list of Tesla's radio work.
 * Marconi's role in the history of radio was a full list of Marconi's radio work.
 * I made those pages separate because including them in History of radio would have made History of radio too long.
 * Radio priority controversy was specifically about the radio patent and invention priority dispute.
 * My versions are in my namespace.

Anthony Appleyard 16:30, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anthony Appleyard, you're once again misrepresenting the facts.  The Tesla and Marconi pages already were separate from History of Radio, they were in Invention Of Radio which contains all the information in this article, until you started cutting things up.  This is the last page that needs a delete/redirect to get things back to where other editors agreed they should be.    Sparkhead  17:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment see my comments at Articles for deletion/Tesla's role in the history of radio... The Request for Arbitration is going to be a dead end here... this is a content dispute and they will not get involved in that. Personally I lead towards a redirect to Invention Of Radio here, but as I said above, a total solution to all these articles needs to be reached. I suggest an RfC to see if there is consensus towards a merge or redirect.--Isotope23 19:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, one of the major patent/invention disputes of the 20th century. Gazpacho 22:46, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I can't figure out what's going on here. Gazpacho 00:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Close and relist after ArbCom ruling --Roninbk t c # 09:32, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment, no reason to do that... Arbcom is going to reject this as a content dispute.--Isotope23 14:50, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Delete. All this matter is now in Invention of Radio. Anthony Appleyard 21:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Comment The author (previous comment above) of this page and myself have worked out how to merge the information here back into the appropriate History of Radio and Invention of Radio articles.  He's requested a    speedy delete so can we close this down to resolve this?  Thanks.  Sparkhead  21:30, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After a merge, the best policy is a redirect unless the title is absurd. --Henrygb 22:25, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Wasn't a merge so much as a pruning of a fork. Since the article had a life of 5 days, the title is not a commonly used name for the events it references, and no content pages link to it, seemed a delete would be the most appropriate course of action.    Sparkhead  22:39, 27 September 2006 (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.