Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coded set

The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

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 no consensus. So Why 13:12, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coded set

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

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

Please note that I have included the following articles in this AFD:

I came across these articles while going through February 2009 orphans. I ran a PetScan search for articles whose only reference was Federal Standard 1037C and which were February 2009 orphans and came up with these sixteen articles. They're clearly unsuitable for Wikipedia and I considered whether using the transwiki process to move them to Wikitionary would be worth a shot but other than the Federal Standard document, none of the terms seem to have much coverage in other sources, and definitely not enough to warrant their own article. I also considered moving one of them to List of terms in Federal Standard 1037C but realised that would leave out a metric ton of other terms not uncovered by the PetScan query but included in the aforementioned document, plus it would approach What Wikipedia is not territory, so I decided to AFD them. I will notify the relevant WikiProjects. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 15:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:59, 21 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete all~~ by nom's rationale. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 22 June 2018 (UTC). Change vote provided that somebody is prepared to do the expanding or marging. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC).[reply]
[Notable per Graeme Bartlett and Andrew Davidson below]. Oppose. Deletion of these terms would violate ATD, PRESERVE and R. If they are not notable, they clearly ought to be merged, perhaps to List of telephony terminology, List of telecommunications encryption terms Glossary of broadcasting terms, or a similar page. (I am not sure exactly where these should go because of the jargon I don't have time to decipher; it might be desirable to create a new glossary). They do have enough coverage to be worth including somewhere. James500 (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2018 (UTC) I have modified my original !vote by adding the words in the square brackets. It appears these terms are even more important than I first realised and should each have a standalone article. It was unhelpful of the nominator to nominate so many articles at once. James500 (talk) 04:37, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep all these topics each could be referenced and expanded to become suitable article. Perhaps they are only definitions at this point, but there is much more to say. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:12, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The nominator just seems to want to delete these because they are orphans but that's not a valid reason to delete. Per WP:IMPERFECT, they should just be left as stubs, awaiting further attention. Andrew D. (talk) 19:22, 22 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draft-ify all all of these are WP:DICTDEFs sourced only to a single government document (one of them currently has a single reference, but that's to a different copy of the same federal standard), and none have links from other pages. There is no indication of encyclopedic notability for any of these terms at this time. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:42, 23 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge most into appropriate others. Most are details of topics of larger articles, for example Independent clock is a detail of Plesiochronous digital hierarchy. Jim.henderson (talk) 12:36, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Perhaps there is a rationale to delete some of these individually but there is not sufficient justification to delete all. Also deletion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. Please look for more productive ways to improve the encyclopedia. ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all as per nominator’s rationale.Mccapra (talk)
Comment: Andrew Davidson, no, my deletion rationale is WP:NOTDICTIONARY, I merely mentioned that I came across them while de-orphaning the February 2009 orphans. StraussInTheHouse (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.