Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tower Mounted Amplifier


 * 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 and Cleanup. utcursch | talk 16:40, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Tower Mounted Amplifier

 * – (View AfD){{ (View log)


 * This page was speedied {{db-nonsense}}, but it looks fairly sensible to me. Best get an opinion from a radio expert. Anthony Appleyard 23:01, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Doesn't seem like nonsense, but it is a jargon and abbreviation filled piece of unreferenced "how-to" that sure sounds like a cut and paste, since it appeared all at once and as the first contribution of a new editor. It is more detail than seems justified for an encyclopedia article on the topic. If not a copy off something, then it should be deleted as original research. Edison 23:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hold; the term has been listed on TMA for a while and appears to be in common use, and . It looks like new contributor {{user|Pratick}} just needs some coaching. John Vandenberg 06:32, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete as some sort of advertisement, or how-to, or just unreadable "sounds like stereo instructions" essay. Sorry. --Fang Aili {{sup| talk }} 18:19, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete Of course it's unreferenced. That was one of the reasons why I've even speedied it in the first place.  Also with the same reasoning as Fang Aili and Edison.  V 6 0  {{sup| 干什么？  ·  VDemolitions }} 21:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep - needs expert and reference tags, but topic seems more than notable enough for a stub. Smmurphy{{sup|(Talk)}} 18:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep this seems to be a widely-used piece of equipment; tag it {{tl|expert-verify}} and wait for an expert. I agree with John that Pratick may need help, so I'll leave a welcome message for him (he never got one - horrors!). Krakatoa  Katie  14:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. Also tagged as unsourced. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Delete and rewrite. The article is NOT encyclopedic In its current form. It is almost a "howto" and should be avoided on Wikipedia. It need a whole section about "who, what, when, where, and why" then go on to "how". -- Emana 18:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Delete and rewrite seems misguided in a case like this. The article is informative, and someone interested in the subject will get more out of this than out of no article. The article has more technical specifications per capita than one might expect in an encyclopedia, but it doesn't seem very how-to-esque, but rather talks about the pros and cons of the system.  On the other hand, if the worry is that this is a copyvio, then I'm begining to think delete and rewrite might be a good idea. Smmurphy{{sup|(Talk)}} 20:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Question: How do we delete AND rewrite? Just Wondering... --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep but: tag the article as unsourced. To me it reads like extracts from either a textbook or HAM Radio or similar communications handbook; or more likely, a website that serves the same purpose.  It looks real - in the sense that it is far too sophisticated to be a complete fabrication (which would be cause for speedy deletion).  It might even constitute plagiarism (also cause), but I think it is of value and should be kept somehow.  If we have the sources from whence the information came, then it could be re-written by interested editors, with properly cited quotes to the sources (especially for the formulas), and paraphrasing to try to tone down the jargon.  If it is not sourced with citations after a reasonable time, then apparently the originating  and visiting editors lost interest or determined it could not be properly wikified.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum / Question - Does anyone know if there is a WikiProject for Radio Communications or something like that? If so, then perhaps we can contact them and ask them to improve the article, or post it on their "to do" list?  They might not even know the article exists, and would love to fix it up.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Addendum to the addenda: Found it ... WikiProject Telecommunications - perhaps they can help.  I'll post it on their page.  --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 18:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Keep to give time for T-dot's excellent suggestion to work. Lots of detailed technical information here that I'm (we're?) not qualified to judge - needs expert attention. Paxse 08:15, 18 May 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.