Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Single-board microcontroller

Single-board microcontroller

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is the latest page to come under attack from user:Wtshymanski (see Afd/2N3055, AfD talk #Mass deletion of electronic components, WQA #Wtshymanski and the transistor AfDs). Rather than leave the wreckage afterwards as the usual unreadable and fragmentary wikicrap he leaves behind, I'd rather see it deleted entirely. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion. Notable class of automation products, a preliminary Google sniff shows book references going back to 1988 and with a little work this article can be properly referenced and organized. --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close as a possible bad-faith nomination. Both parties apparently are having a major disagreement regarding the article in question, and although the edit summaries are a little pointed, the article itself seems to have improved. I suggest both editors take a break to cool down, and if that doesn't work, see dispute resolution. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, Andy Dingley may be asserting ownership of the article, seeing as s/he is the creator and main editor of the page. Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with other editors working to improve the article, just Wtshymanski and his often-commented (just read the links above) track record of broadly negative contribution by deleting piecemeal. In particular, I've always recognised that the citations from the '70s and '80s needed to be improved by someone who had the space to still keep their old back-issues of Byte around (mine went a few house moves ago).

You claim the article is "improved", yet what have these changes been? The unexplained deletion of any reference to C or PL/M as programming languages for this class of device, yet adding an unreferenced section that "single-board controllers may web servers" is OK. Hardly an improvement. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]