Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hand Held Computer

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 merge to 2010 United States Census and Harris Corporation. (non-admin closure) → Call me Razr Nation 01:24, 3 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hand Held Computer

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

This article is not at all about "hand held computers" in general. It is about a handheld computer developed by Harris and used in the 2010 census of the US. This does not appear to be a notable device, since only passing reference is made to it in a couple of references provided in the article. Searching for more refs was difficult given the generic name (or lack of name) of the device. Perhaps others can find good refs to demonstrate notability. Edison (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CommentHandheld computer redirects to Mobile device. Thus we already have an article which covers handheld computers in general. Edison (talk) 21:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable in itself at all. And much of the "sourcing" appears to be PR from Harris Corporation in any event - (almost as badly written as if it were written by an actual employee, alas). All uses other than from Harris simply refer to "handheld computers" which indicates outside sources did not consider this specific example to be notable on its own. And the editors on Harris Corporation do not deem it worth even a parenthetical mention. Collect (talk) 22:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge relevant information to 2010 United States Census. The whole contract attribution etc. seems to have gotten a fair bit of coverage. Then redirect the title to Mobile device.

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 03:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge w/ 2010 United States Census. Since I originated the article, let me provide some insight. I was a regional Manager for the 2010 Census and had inside info about the device. It had a specific usage that was unique to the 2010 Census's need for management of information. It was a tool that assisted the enumerators in locating people and places in a safe and controlled manner. It made their job easier and quicker and the information supplied was more reliable. Within the Census, we called the device the HHC. It has some notability and deserves its own article but I would understand if the consensus rules otherwise. Plesae see [1]... These systems will support the data collection activities of Census Bureau enumerators and local census offices during the 2008 dress rehearsal and ultimately the 2010 Decennial Census. At the peak of data collection operations during the 2010 Census, the FDCA system will support approximately 500 local offices and over 500,000 enumerators. That's alot of offices and alot of people. Also, see [2] and [3] which explain the use of the HHC device as a GPS ascertaining device for the 2008 dress rehearsal, the 2010 Census, and potentially all future censuses. Efficiency, speed, reduced paper costs, secure collection and, most importantly, confidentiality (finger-print technology) were all important. I'm sure Google searching can show many media articles. There were some glitches related to enumerator mis-use that should be available if the right question is asked. Another source is [4] which has an image of an early prototype very similar to the unit that was eventually used during the 2010 census. As you can see there is no keyboard so maybe calling it "computer" is the problem and should be removed from the title of the article and changed to "device" or some other more descriptive and less confusing word. Buster Seven Talk 05:34, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note WP:COI appears to apply here. And the "personal opinion" that the problems were due to operator "mis-use"(sic) seems to avoid the primary responsibility that we use neutral language gleaned from reliable sources in the first place. Nor is the Harris Corporation a proper source at all here. Sorry - but this article looks worse by the hour. Collect (talk) 13:36, 29 December 2015 (UTC) Appending: The "Popular Mechanics" article appears to be Press Release material from the company. See also the PR at http://spinthecat.blogspot.com/2007_11_01_archive.html . And the myriad press releases from Harris which are not WP:RS material. Collect (talk) 13:59, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the relevant information across both 2010 United States Census and Harris Corporation, then redirect this title to Mobile device ensuring {{rcats}} {{R from alternative name}} and {{R from other capitalization}} are displayed on the redirected page. The information in this article is verifiable in reliable secondary sources and though it is not sufficiently notable for a stand alone article, it is necessary information that should be included in existing Wikipedia articles where its best fit is found. In my opinion, it becomes disproportionate and undue if all of this article's information is merged into any single article. I disagree with the assessment that conflicted interests are apparent within the article. The closeness with the subject the article's creator self-declared above appears to have been well managed when based solely on a reading of this article.--John Cline (talk) 15:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Operator mis-use. I remember reading mainstream media articles in 2009-2010, I believe from Texas or Kansas, about problems that enumerators were having with the units. The problems noted in the articles were almost always human error; using the wrong finger, not daily charging the battery, new cuts on finger, hand lotion on finger, not allowing the unit to update over-night while not in use, improper care (rain, dropping, etc.), trying to send info while in a closed-off space, etc. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on the enumerators but it was too easy to blame the machine. Field Operations reports showed conclusively that the device was 99% reliable. I can think of only two incidents where the device was defective as to Fingerprint Identification. Anyway, secondary articles exist. Buster Seven Talk 17:55, 29 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Merge across 2010 United States Census and Harris Corporation per intelligent contribution from John Cline.; or at least with the former, per SwisterTwister. Also agree with JC about COI. A close read of the article satisfies me that such aspersions are inappropriate in this instance, and out of place. Writegeist (talk) 00:26, 31 December 2015 (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.