Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Programmable automation controller Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Programmable_automation_controller

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 delete. A redirect can be created separately if wanted  — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:17, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Programmable automation controller (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)

Spammy WP:NEO and WP:CFORK. This is one vendor's neologism for their own product, which sets out to distance itself from its competitor's Programmable logic controllers by inventing a new term for itself. No sourcing other than from Opto22 and ARC themselves. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:37, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. More than one manufacturer sells something described as "Programmable Automation Controller" - some sell a shoebox-sized PLC under this name, Foxboro uses it for their "high end" controller. Since it's a marketing term with no commonly accepted differentiator from "programmable controller", it coudl be deleted and if needed a mention made at "programmable controller".--Wtshymanski (talk) 18:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 19:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC) I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes the article is spammy, and yes it has been monopolized by SPA/POV to one vendor. It's a mess and needs fixed, and the external links go nowhere toward showing notability per GNG. Unfortunately this is a notable concept that is not a neologism but happens to be saddled with a terrible article. I added references that show discourse about this topic in trade press, took out 'spammy' external links, and removed useless "coined by ARC" passage. Most vendors make both PLCs and PACs, so the theory that it's a single manufacturer's product name is inaccurate. The nominator can be excused for not finding much towards notability with normal searches, as good editorial is buried amid volumes of product and news release data. However, if you look [|here] and [|Here] you'll find sufficient references for notability. I may take on improving the article if time permits, but for now I have to say Keep and fix. Celtechm (talk) 02:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC) Update Celtechm (talk) 21:15, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This [1] says a PAC is a personal computer running LabView. This [2] says something similar. This [3] says a PAC is an "advanced" PLC ( every PLC since the PLC/2 has been an "advanced" PLC). These guys [4] describe a "programmable automation controller" that very much resembles a PLC. Someone called "Control Technology Corporation" was selling a "Model 2800 Programmable Automation Controller" in 1985, when Bill Gates was still trying to get Solitare to shuffle the cards. (Google Books Machine design: Volume 57, Issues 13-19 1985). Who is the ARC? Is it more than just one vendor? --Wtshymanski (talk) 13:34, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is one of two things: either a trivial variant on programmable controller with nothing to distinguish it from such (and so where a redirect would seem the best solution). PLC does at least have recognised distinguishing characteristics from a "PC in a stronger box". Otherwise it's one vendor's WP:NEO, and it's having a hard job to justify itself for 3rd party notability. Now it could be seen as either of these things, but what it doesn't appear as is a notable topic that stands in isolation. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • ARC seems to have some credibility, though it is a market research company. (Wait till you see the inevitable article on Collaborative Process Automation Systems - talk about "proactively leveraging our paradigms to achieve new synergies" - but ISA published a book on this so evidently ISA thinks ARC sees something we need to know about.) --Wtshymanski (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still a whitepaper by a vendor, but... http://www.ni.com/white-paper/2960/en —Ruud 21:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete WP:NEO, although a redirect to Programmable logic controllers probably couldn't hurt either. —Ruud 18:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They're not PLCs. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's not exactly what you seem to be saying above? —Ruud 20:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Programmable controllers aren't all the same thing as programmable logic controllers. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But Programmable controller is a disambiguation page to Programmable Interrupt Controller (unrelated), programmable automation controller and programmable logic controller, whose lead starts with "A programmable logic controller (PLC) or programmable controller is..."? —Ruud 21:30, 23 August 2012 (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.