Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Auto Detection Auto Configuration

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. Black Kite (t) (c) 00:11, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Auto Detection Auto Configuration

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

Delete. Non-notable technology - even more so in
the long term. Also, it consists of technical detail that is not suitable for WP -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:54, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. —Tom Morris (talk) 21:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

keep but consider merging with similar technology. ?"technical details"? I see one modest paragraph of very basic description, them inimum amount necessary to even say what the subject is. Wikipedia is an encylopeia that includes technology, and so necessarily will include the description of that technology. Too general for an advertisement, but for an encyclopedia perhaps it shouldbe esxpanded. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- An editor has added numerous articles about Avaya products to such as extent that it has collectively become SPAM. It has skewed the coverage of technology towards that company. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 09:22, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. — • Gene93k (talk) 00:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Avaya - as should probably be done with the dozen other articles about individual protocols produced by Avaya, none of which appear to be individually notable. They are all listed in the box at the bottom of the page, for the convenience of any would-be redirector. --MelanieN (talk) 22:52, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can see, in some cases, redirecting a product to the company but this is a feature of a product. Too far removed for me to go with you on this. --Kvng (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and redirect How do we accomplish a redirect during an -afd? Last article I tried that on the edits were reverted. -- Geek2003 (talk) 10:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

We don't. We wait for an administrator to come along and make the decision - which will be based on consensus, and at this point the consensus isn't evident. However, we can put some of the information into the target article while we're waiting for consensus. That would be just a sentence or two, not all the detail currently in the article. For an example, see how the various articles on individual models of LaserWriter (

LaserWriter IISC, etc.) were merged into the article LaserWriter. I agree with others here that the best target article might not be Avaya but rather a new article about the line of products, for example Avaya routers and switches or Avaya telephones. --MelanieN (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Exactly. But if no one steps up to start an article with more appropriate scope, do we just delete all these little turds that could be used to help build the new article? --Kvng (talk) 22:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In fact LaserWriter II was initially created as a redirect. Talk:LaserWriter correctly shows that the decisions for both 'LaserWriter Pro 810' and 'LaserWriter Pro 600' were merge. However, there was in fact little content to merge in these cases! Please refer to discussion linked to below. --Trevj (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable feature of some probably non-notable Avaya products. --Kvng (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Re:How do we accomplish a redirect during an -afd?

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Computing#Discussion on AfD guidelines for articles containing content unlikely to be merged. Trevj (talk) 11:11, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Totally agree with Alan Liefting. No redirect is needed. -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 13:54, 8 September 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.