Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wireless Access Platforms for Electronic Communications Services Management


 * 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 nomination failed to garner any support for deletion even though the discussion was relisted. WP:Crystal does not apply to everything... some things can be highly notable as a proposal. If the article was written in a future perspective as if it was already enacted, and its enactment was necessary to establish notability, then it would be a crystal candidate. The respondents in this discussion felt that this proposal was notable as a proposal.  Jerry  talk ¤ count/logs 00:37, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wireless Access Platforms for Electronic Communications Services Management

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

This is a proposed framework for electronic communications. If it is proposed, then the article fails WP:CRYSTAL. Tavix (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep I didn't look at the sources closely, but proposed things, given enough sources, don't automatically fail WP:CRYSTAL. In engineering, proposals are often proposals quite late into the process.  It's something like deleting the Theory of Gravity because it is just a theory. The number and nature of the sources look fine to more than meet WP:N.  If the sources are all about something else, that's a problem (and I didn't check, it would take quite a while).  But being a "proposal" isn't enough to justify deletion. Hobit (talk) 15:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * comment I don't know how theories popped in the conversation, but just because it is a proposal, doesn't mean its actually going to happen. There is always a chance for cancellation if something happens and then it really wouldn't be notable. The truth of the matter is that we can't predict the future so unless this actually happens, then it isn't notable. Tavix (talk) 16:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Right, but given that RS exist for the proposal, it is notable per WP:N. Further, even failed proposals can be "notable" in the real-world sense.  The analogy to a theory I was trying for is that a theory might well be proven to be wrong, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable.  Similarly a proposal could be not accepted, but that doesn't mean it isn't notable.  This proposal seems to be both "of interest" and have "significant coverage in independent reliable sources".  So it seems like it meets our inclusion criteria.  There may be good reasons to _not_ include it.  But just because it's a proposal and might not happen isn't enough justification in the face of meeting WP:N.  At this point the proposal exists and is well reported on.  That's enough IMO. Hobit (talk) 18:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Keep The company in question was given EU mandate to develop such a framework. Read; EU Mandate. There is a chance of cancellation yes, but that doesn't diminish its notability; without resorting to "other stuff exists" I note that the OICW, a failed proposal, still exists; should this fail it has still got past the stage of the OICW, where various companies submitted bids; if you read the sources a company has been selected and is working on the project now. Ironholds 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * comment Project proposals can be notable, in my opinion, simply because of what they lead to. For instance it's quite likely that the Omnivore proposal, while never completed, is notable because it morphed into the Carnivore (software)/DCS1000/dragontools suite project.  A somewhat more dramatic example might be theoretical tech like the Project Orion (nuclear propulsion): it was never built but certainly the project has had a lasting impact and inspired sci/fi authors the world over.  If it seems that it will quite likely be built or that the proposal itself at this time is covered by notable, reliable sources I'd think a threshold of notability and reliability has been met. 69.210.48.138 (talk) 21:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  JForget  22:50, 10 August 2008 (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.