Jump to content

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Y.3800

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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. Geschichte (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Y.3800[edit]

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

Y.3800 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The user Brascoian (talk) is an account that was created one day ago, the user page also doesn't actually exist it is an empty page Bquast (talk)

  • @Bquast: It doesn't matter if the account is created 15 years ago, if the account is doing vandalism and non-constructive edits, Its Wrong. Brascoian (talk) 16:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course, however this is a fully valid article about the only networking standard in QKD that allows for multi-point networks. Vandalism seems like a very far stretch. The fact that you created a user page that is empty only further delegimizes this unsuported claim Bquast (talk)
  • Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2021 June 21. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:36, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bquast: It doesn't matter if my user page is empty we are talking about the Notability of the article not my user page. Brascoian (talk to me) 16:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 19:22, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep: I make out visit to this page in the limited time I have an I find the nom. is !voting. Its a valid keep albeit poorly referenced and I'm not wasting further time. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Djm-leighpark, if you're not prepared to spend time on this then you shouldn't be commenting. I have spent some time and have not found significant coverage in independent reliable sources. Please enlighten us as to where such coverage exists. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:02, 22 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is for the closer to decide. This is a basket case of an AfD. The International Telecommunication Union is a specialized United Nations agency and stuff deserves respect. Djm-leighpark (talk)
@Brascoian: As the !voting nominator you have a vested interest in getting me from doing a more thorough investigation and I must AGF you think you are giving me great advice the actuality of the situation is that is a provocation to commit time and resource at this rather than other stuff. I will choose when and where and if to re-engage on this discussion. I may choose to do so this afternoon should the NHS choose to give a somewhat road distant pretty well housebound in an increasing Covid-19 (Delta?) hotspot now 14 weeks after his first jab ... if not I'm roping family resources to fork-lift him to vac. centre. And my families issues with Covid-19 are mildly significant but trivial to others. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:01, 23 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The suggestion that the article is an advertisement is absurd: it is not remotely promotional. Notability is less obvious, and at present I don't have time to do the necessary checking to decide that, but I may come back to it when I have more time. JBW (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:17, 28 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This is an ITU standard, it's not advertisement. Also, I find the behaviour of Brascoian very suspicious. Supposedly a 10-day old account, they have been editing with extreme assiduity and like a very experienced user. Tercer (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2021 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Y.3800&oldid=1032451120"