Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Satellite network

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 redirect to Radiocommunication service. And merge the definition there or to other appropriate article(s). Consensus here is that because we are not a (technical) dictionary, articles should not consist only of definitions. That is no barrier against expanding the topic to a full article later, if it is deemed notable.  Sandstein  08:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

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

Just a definition. Speedy challenged on the ground that ":This article is strict in line to the International Telecommunication Union´s (ITU) ITU Radio Regulations (RR) article 1.112 definition, agreed by almost 200 administrations during WRC conferences. It is in line to the corresponding ITU RR articles 1.110 Space radio system, 1.111 Satellite radio system, 1.113 Satellite link, 1.114 Multi-satellite link and last but not least 1.115 Feeder link. It´s nice to have the article Communications satellite / Satellite communications, however, from the strict scientific point of few it is almost popular level. At the other hand the article Communications satellite / Satellite communications might be related to Radiocommunication service, e.g. Mobile-satellite service (1.25), Land mobile-satellite service (1.25), or Broadcasting satellite-service (1.39), to mention only a few... " Looking at the ones listed in the template at the bottom of the article, they all have the same problem. Either they should be expanded, or grouped in some such manner as" ITU definitions. '" or all be redirected. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested by nom, e.g. to Radiocommunication service (merging definitions there, and removing its many links to "main articles") as bigger and better articles on the subject already exist; all the dictionary definition stubs should similarly be redirected, no need to AfD them. And by the way that template needs serious surgery too. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep The nomination is not quite clear but doesn't seem to be proposing deletion of anything. The topic is notable – see Introduction to Satellite Networking, for example – and AFD is not cleanup. Andrew D. (talk) 18:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as suggested. We don't have to copy each entry of a technology dictionary into its own encyclopedia article. ITU definitions are indeed important information, and each can be included in its appropriate article. True, the nomination quite rightly does not propose to delete anything. Has someone else proposed deleting something? Jim.henderson (talk) 16:42, 30 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.