Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antenna Structure Registration

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. Or at least no consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:39, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Antenna Structure Registration

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

Wikipedia is not an instruction manual. The content of this article is non-encyclopedic retelling of administrative rules adopted by FCC. Renata (talk) 19:57, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Add: apparently created as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject United States Public Policy/Courses/Spring 2011/Telecommunication Policy Analysis (Johannes Bauer). Feel bad now, but the article is still non-encyclopedic. Renata (talk) 20:02, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs improvement to become more encyclopedic, but that doesn't have anything to do with the notability of the subject. The article discusses a significant US federal regulation, and there's certainly no shortage of sources that have discussed the topic at one time or another. Zachlipton (talk) 02:37, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, little encyclopedic content or claim to notability, orphaned. Hairhorn (talk) 14:53, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BusterD (talk) 22:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I concur with Zachlipton. Looks like an important regulation.SYSS Mouse (talk) 22:45, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. — frankie (talk) 01:24, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, so we don't re-publish regulations and statutes, no matter how important. That said, if the article is rewritten to discuss the regulation, its impact, effect, and other related aspects, then it would be acceptable. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 18:04, 26 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be improved, why argue for deletion?--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 00:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOT nymets2000 (t/c/l) 01:00, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing admin you may want to check the above editor's talk page in deciding the weight to assign their comment. Monty ₈₄₅ 23:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note At this time the article was moved to Antenna Structure Registration in the United States.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The regulations appear to be notable as evidenced by a search of Google books. The article would benefit from being rewritten to say less about which forms to fill out, and more about the reasoning behind and impact of the regulations. But that is not a reason to delete it.--Pontificalibus (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Stub Notability isn't the issue. The issue is that it's not an encyclopedia article and would need to be scrapped and completely rewritten to become one. Perhaps the lead could be salvaged, but that's about it. --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:37, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. —Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 21:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is there a definition of non-encyclopedic somewhere? --Kvng (talk) 03:41, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Unencyclopedic is an old discussion. Usually people are referring to WP:Not, and there is a common understanding that non-encyclopedic means not-notable. In short it is material regarded as of being of trivial or limited interest, and if we started to include such material then Wikipedia would become swamped and would cease to be of value as a readable summary of human knowledge. In short, if we included everything we become the internet. We are not the internet, we are an encyclopaedia. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 16:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for the very helpful link. Unencyclopedic has an ambiguous meaning. Unencyclopedic by itself is not valid justification for deletion. We need to know why you consider it unencyclopedic. --Kvng (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while the article is currently a retelling of regulations and therefore not up to WP standards, the subject is notable and the article can be improved to be sufficiently encyclopedic. --Kvng (talk) 21:36, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — being unencyclopedic (a fuzzy test in itself) is not justification for deletion. -- samj _in ^out 07:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep "Non-encyclopedic" means not suitable for Wikipedia for whatever reason, as Wikipedia is the encyclopedia we are talking about. But that the content is presently non encyclopedic does not mean the topic is necessarily so, and, the article can be edited appropriately. DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 2 September 2011 (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.