Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Call originator

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was - kept - SimonP 15:30, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

Call originator[edit]

Not notable. Were a dictionary definition necessary, this article has been transwikied by KevinBot. Physchim62 15:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, encyclopedic, seems to be notable from what links here. Kappa 18:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's an important concept, but I see no potential for this article to expand beyond a dicdef. Any important links can be changed to point to Wiktionary. ---Isaac R 19:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Any credentials in telecom business, please? Mikkalai 00:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Wiktionary isn't going on the DVD version of WP. Kappa 23:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not a good reason to violate the "not a dictionary" principle. I hope you're not suggesting that we should never use Wiktionary: links! ---Isaac R 17:05, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Move. Wiktionary. EvilPhoenix
- It is already there. Mikkalai 00:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
keep. a potential for expansion exists. Mikkalai 00:11, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see that. If you know how to expand the article, you should do so. Even a single non-dicdef setence might be enough to convince me. ---Isaac R 16:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  - What's wrong with "Modems and fax machines use different tones when originating or answering a connection, which may be a source of problem for the user".?
    - Not enough, and isn't something you'd look under this subject to find. ---Isaac R 23:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      - that's what encyclopedia for: you always find more than you expect! Mikkalai 00:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        I think the primary purpose of encylopedias has something to do with finding what you're looking for. With that in mind, it makes sense to talk about modems and faxes under modems and faxes, not under an obscure bit of telecom jargon. --- Isaac R 19:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If expanded, keep; otherwise see nothing but dicdef --Simon Cursitor 07:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with call tracing. R adiant _* 09:14, May 13, 2005 (UTC)
After some thinking, what is really needed is a good call (telecommunications) article. the current "call" one is a mess even for a disambig. Mikkalai 00:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, VfD~=cleanup. (gotta make a template for that) Grue 18:07, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree that VfD is not about cleanup (and about the need for a template). But how does that apply here? We've got four or five votes for saving the article by cleaning it up -- but no suggestions for a cleanup strategy. The real problem is not that the article's a mess. It's that the article is a dicdef with no stub potential. We also need a template that says, "if you're so sure this article can be grown or cleaned up, go ahead and do it." ---Isaac R 19:09, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.