Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autopatch

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. (non-admin closure) DavidLeighEllis (talk) 00:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Autopatch

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

WP:WORLDWIDE, WP:RS, no reliable sources, WP:OR, this article should not exist. If it is a jargon term in the US then so be it, but there is not an article on "Stilsons" or "Rawlplugs". Got here from WP:RfD as there is a redirect here to it but have to sort one before the other. Si Trew (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Ridiculous to even suggest that this should be deleted. I'm sure that amateur radio operators in many other countries have done the same thing, regardless of what they call it. Considering there are over 1.2 million results for the word on Google, this is certainly not something unknown. I will also point out that Stilson wrench is a redirect from a brand name to the more general pipe wrench, and Rawlplug redirects to Rawlplug Ltd, a maker of wall plugs. These two are simply examples of genericized trademarks, while autopatch is not a trademark at all, and describes a unique type of device/invention on its own. –radiojon (talk) 22:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This spun out of an RfA I opened, and I'm just as mystified as @Radiojon: as to why anybody would think this article should be deleted. I added a citation to the ARRL page which talks about this. The article could certainly use cleaning up, and better referencing, but the ARRL should at least qualify as a WP:reliablesource. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sensible to have an article describing this equipment. --do ncr am 23:34, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although renaming to phone patch would better suit clarity and internationalisation. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that the redirect at phone patch is up for deletion too: Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_2#Phone_patch. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:25, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep as proposer. It came to RFD first (the redirect for phone patch) and thence I listed Autopatch, its target, here. Coming with clean hands I linked the two together so other editors could have an easy reference from one to the other.

Since it is obviously a strong keep and seems to have a lot of consensus to be so, I think this should be closed as speedy keep. Si Trew (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way at RFD, although the sidebar and Twinkle etc says "Redirects for Deletion", they are there for discussion not deletion. Quite a few get kept, retarget and so on. That is how these kind of things get worked out with discussion by good-faith editors, I am not sitting here knitting while the guillotine falls. Si Trew (talk) 14:04, 3 March 2014 (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.