Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC

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. No policy argument for deleting the material was presented, and a plan for presenting content was put forward. j⚛e decker ^talk 03:34, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC[edit]

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

There are two different court cases here, one from 1980 and another from 2008, which have been combined in this article by people unfamiliar with the differences between CB and ham radio. bleak_fire_ (talk) 22:36, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There's certainly confusion between two cases here, but surely something can be done short of deletion, if one or both of the cases are notable, to focus on one case or present the two cases side by side. --Colapeninsula (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment How about instead of deletion, we create a disambiguation page, like this?

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC (disambiguation)

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC can refer to either:

American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC (1980), regarding CB radio
American Radio Relay League, Inc. v. FCC (2008), regarding Broadband over Power Line (BPL)

K2TRF has stated (see Talk page) that most of the content on the page refers to 1980 with incorrect technical information. We can keep this page, with the changes suggested by K2TRF and I (we are both ham operators, and I am familiar with legal citations). Then we link this article into the 1980 on the disambiguation page, while allowing someone to write the 2008 case later on?

We can use the Talk page of the disambiguation page to store information for later transfer to 2008 when it is made.

-bleak_fire_ (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Should post what I did on the Talk page here, for continuity to the AfD. In the first paragraph, three reference links are applied to the end of the date (at the end of the sentence):

    1. http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/617/875/41173/
    2. http://www.leagle.com/decision/2008751524F3d227_1727
    3. http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12380905032588396714&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The first link references the 1980 case, whereas the second and third links are entirely about the 2008 case. From this alone, we can assume the article was written with mixed sources, and therefore has multiple problems/inconsistencies in its text. I'm not sure if I'm just incredibly tired (at 11:46pm locally) or if this article is written incorrectly, but I don't see anything even remotely related to Broadband over Power Line systems (BPL), which is what the 2008 case was entirely about. The 1980 case, dealing with the massive influx of CB operations and the unregulated nature of both CB as a service and the mentioned operators, is the only case case I can see mentioned/referenced in this text. Perhaps it is just a very shallow article discussing the 1980 case, and needs to have the irrelevant references removed as well as have the content of the article expanded with the valid, relevant references? Then a new page could be made for the 2008 case, dealing with BPL rather than CB.

If the current article is denied AfD, it should only be because it is/becomes adopted/corrected by someone with the time to (essentially) rewrite the current page using only the 1980 case information (since that is what the article reads about, and has no discussion about the 2008 case present). Then another article could be created for the 2008 case, with those respective references. Sadly, I cannot guarantee I would be able to do this in a timely manner myself, due to other already existing obligations. If I have time later on at some point, I will return to see if the AfD passed or was denied (for adoption & re-creating), however if nobody has the free time to currently take this task on, I have to vote for the AfD, as it is incorrect and confusing in its current state. k2trf (talk) 22:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

K2TRF, I am willing to fix the current article once it's moved to 1980 in a disambiguation page. We don't need to create a 2008 article right away, it can just be listed on the disambiguation page and linked once the article is made. -bleak_fire_ (talk) 06:31, 25 June 2014 (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.