mic_none

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arduino compatibles Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Arduino_compatibles

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) Steven Zhang The clock is ticking.... 02:37, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Arduino compatibles

[edit]
List of Arduino compatibles (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Very detailed list of a family of computer boards. In my view, it falls firmly into the link farm / directory area. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:19, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. —Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 15:41, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. On 13 August 2011 Andy Dingley Split this content from Arduino. In its original location, there was a strong consensus that it belongs in Wikipedia (no allegation of it being a link farm or directory) with many editors adding to it, but there was also a consensus that it was getting a bit large and dominating the page, so the split/move decision was a good one. Now, one week after the creation as a separate page, it is being proposed for deletion. In my opinion, this page is one of the best and most useful parts of Wikipedia, and not only should it not be deleted, it should be improved even further and submitted to Wikipedia:Good article nominations. Guy Macon (talk) 18:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It was actually proposed for deletion, by the same nominator, within hours of the page being created. That's the sort of support that makes the whole project worthwhile. 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 19:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • strong keep this list seems to fall under WP:LISTN to some extent. A simple google books search shows that there is much discussion in reliable sources of arduino compatibles as a group. Furthermore, this list seems to me what the notability guideline calls a "cross-categorization list", about which the guideline states: "There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y")" It seems to me that in the absence of consensus for guidelines for establishing notability of such a list, and given the fact that the subject of the list as a group is notable, it is more than reasonable to rely on the consensus of the multitude of editors who have had in-depth and lengthy discussions about splitting this off from the arduino article (see Talk:Arduino#List_Of_Arduino-compatible_Boards_and_Shields) and who have done an excellent job and put in a lot of high-quality work on this article. — Alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 20:38, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Although I tagged the lede as too short, since it gives the reader no idea whatever as to what these computer boards do, I read the Arduino article and see that these boards are important in the robotics field, and also that the two articles fit together quite well. Others have justified retention of this list better than I can, but there is no reason to delete this article. Perhaps expansion of the whole field is justified in the two existing articles or a new one. --DThomsen8 (talk) 00:34, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any point in writing a lead for an article when admins seek to delete it as soon as it's created? If policy is so obviously far more important than content, why should readability matter at all? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:40, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the admin who proposed deletion appears to be acting in the role of an ordinary editor, and of course any editor can propose deletion. I can even see his point in that to the untrained eye it is hard to distinguish a well-though-out list that was created because of consensus on tbe Atduino talk page and a link farm thrown up by someone wanting free advertising for their boards. That's why it is a proposed deletion instead of some admin just deleting without discussion. I know the hasty deletion attempt leaves a bad taste in your mouth but actually the system is working, Guy Macon (talk) 09:44, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It goes further than WP though - At the Hackspace (where I've been offering printed copies of this article as posters), a place which ought to be a prime recruiting ground for new WP editors with a huge amount to contribute, WP is becoming even more of a joke. First at the Hackspace list it was claimed that "all list entries must meet WP:N" and so entries were deleted on that basis, then the infamous 2N3055 AfD, and now the joke is that WP wants to delete the Arduino too. What should be a WP outreach target thinks instead that WP is a farce, on the basis of failed AfDs. Everything on WP is visible - nominators need to realise that their Serious Admin Bizniz has consequences beyond making themselves feel self-important, and those consequences can affect the public perception of the project. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:23, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent point, and something that should get a wider audience than just here. -Guy Macon (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"KEEP. Not strictly an encyclopedia type article, but wonderfully informative for someone (me) who has just started learning about micro processors and only know of Arduino. Computer storage is cheap. Keep it around. (user AAARONSMITH)67.172.122.167 (talk) 18:52, 26 August 2011 (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.