Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Output

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 per WP:SNOW, WP:BEFORE, and WP:N. Bearian (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Output

This nomination is a little unusual. Although I am nominating the article, I am going to !vote keep. The article was deleted under a G6 speedy (housekeeping) and the former disambiguation page merged over the top of it (see log). This has effectively deleted the original article without discussion, which I feel is not appropriate. Since the deleting admin will neither allow me to restore the material, nor start a deletion discussion himself, I am nominating the article on his behalf. SpinningSpark 21:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is useful and uncontroversial. While being unreferenced, it is far from being unverifiable. The Telecommunications section, at least, had a reference at one time to Federal Standard 1037C. I am still searching the history trying to determine why this was deleted. This may be a sad, unimportant article, in the Greater Wikipedia, but it is harming nothing, telling no untruths, libelling no-one and should be kept. SpinningSpark 21:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The information may be useful, but not here. Recommend moving all useful information to the relevant pages (if it's not covered there already), then Redirect to Output (disambiguation), adding further entries to disambiguation pages if necessary. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:26, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Right, ignore that. I've just seen that Output (disambiguation) is in itself a redirect to Output. As such, it doesn't make sense to delete, merge or redirect this, but neither can we keep this as it is if the guidelines for disambiguation pages are to mean anything. As such, I recommend to close this discussion and continue the discussion of the talk page, with the view that this should be converted to a standard disambiguation page. Unless there are very good reasons why third-party sources compare different types of output to each other, I'd count this original research.

Speedy close Not an AfD issue. Shouldn't this go to DRV? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 22:27, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Output (disambiguation) - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Close and discuss on the article talk page whether this should be converted to a standard disambiguation page, and whether any useful content should be merged elsewhere. Agree with TenPoundHammer - this isn't an AfD issue. PhilKnight (talk) 00:09, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It took a little looking through the revision history to tell what was going on, but I'm convinced that the original article ( which has been restored ) was good, and certainly not subject to speedy-anything. It's essentially a super-disambiguation page that briefly covers usage of "output" among various disciplines. The page it was replaced with was a pretty trivial dab page. The present version, which merges the two, should stand. And it should remain "output", not "output (dab)". BTW, I don't understand the talk about not being able to restore the material, was there more? Squidfryerchef (talk) 04:12, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there was no more. My apologies for not being clear, the phrase "not allow" was possibly too strong. My first restore of the article following the speedy was reverted. Since I did not wish to edit war, but I did wish for the issue to be debated, I brought it here. SpinningSpark 10:45, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep This article could use a couple more references, but is very encyclopedic and helpful to include. The procedure followed is less important than getting the outcome right. This is a good article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:59, 9 November 2008 (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.