Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specialized Mobile Radio


 * 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__EXPECTED_UNCONNECTED_PAGE__ to Trunked radio system as an AtD which hasn't been objected to in nearly 14 days. Daniel (talk) 01:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Specialized Mobile Radio

 * – ( View AfD View log | edits since nomination)

Seems like a very niche concept of dubious notability. One offline hit on GScholar of dubious reliability. GBook is a bit better, but sems still limited to legal documents/manuals. Our article is mostly unreferenced - effectively two footnotes only to unlinked sources, only one of which seems to use this term and in passing. It is not a hoax (here is the deorted archived version of the EL for FCC definiton of the concept: ) but due to problems with notability and referencing I think we should consider WP:ATD-R if not outright deletion, which frankly may be justified due to notability issues. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 04:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  04:53, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Business and Technology.  WC  Quidditch   ☎   ✎  05:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Relisting to see if there is more support for a Merge. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Liz Read! Talk! 07:05, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Delete insignificant and dubias, delete per nom. Freinland (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Merge with Trunked radio system: the subject certainly qualifies for a section in the merge target, but not enough notability to justify a standalone article. Owen&times; &#9742;  13:26, 9 December 2023 (UTC)
 *  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.


 * 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.