Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of 802.15.4 radio modules

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 no consensus. The contention here is whether this list violates WP:NOT, and whether it could be considered as allowable per WP:LISTN. With equal arguments on both sides (and some vagueness - saying that the article does or does not violate WP:NOT without specific examples from the article isn't very helpful), I can only close this as no consensus ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 15:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comparison of 802.15.4 radio modules[edit]

Comparison of 802.15.4 radio modules (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)

This 'comparison' is really just a list of external links to suppliers / vendors of these devices. I'd just remove the links per WP:ELNO point 14, but there wouldn't be much of value left, and Wikipedia is WP:NOT for product listings. Not a single one of the devices is notable, and the concept in general is already well covered at IEEE 802.15.4. All sources are to vendors, as well. I've looked and I don't see any comparisons such as this in independent sourcing that could be used instead. This should be deleted for lack of independent sourcing. MrOllie (talk) 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:00, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per WP:LINKFARM, WP:ELNO, and as a spamfarm presented as an encyclopedic "comparison". If a standard cleanup would remove the entire contents of an article then it's usually best to delete the article. ThemFromSpace 15:23, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter Point. Objectively, a cleanup which removes vender specific links (e.g. brochure, datasheet, or factsheet) would leave a substantial majority of information in place. As an estimate, for each 2 brochure/datasheet/factsheet links there are about 11 other key features provided. Basically, removal of the brochure/datasheet/factsheet links would leave about 85% of the information. And, I do find the remaining 85% to be key features of many notable solid state implementations of a substantial international wireless standard. H.huff (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2013 (UTC) — H.huff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

The Comparison of IEEE 802.15.4 modules page is quite useful to us embedded developers, as it's the only place where you can see all the modules out there at a glance. If it remains I will go through and remove the modules that are EOL'd. Smithderek2000 (talk) 16:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC) — Smithderek2000 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

  • Keep People that understand and are into this sort of thing find it useful. No different than other such lists, other than this is perhaps a less known thing. Comparison list that help understand things are commonly accepted on Wikipedia. Dream Focus 01:19, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:LINKFARM and WP:ELNO. If the editors of this table what to build something like this, they need to start by writing articles on the things being listed, which would require them to be notable, which looks pretty doubtful to me. Stuartyeates (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Cleanup. Actually, I agree with the first part "If the editors of this table want to build something like this, they need to start by ...". The editors of this page need guidance. The redirect thought is that this page should be marked for cleanup with guidance.H.huff (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If you are an engineer you will know this article is very useful (getting the information contained would otherwise take hundreds of hours of effort), verifiable (verifiability is why the article links to source datasheets) and written from a neutral point of view (no opinions are expressed only factual data). AfD notes - 'Lists are generally kept if they are limited in scope, are based upon concrete criteria for inclusion, have verifiable content, and have a logical reason for their construction.' - and this page is all these. I propose we follow the suggestion by Smithderek2000 and remove modules that are EOL'd. And also remove links to vendors in the Manufacturers columns and the firmware options column -- however the datasheet links are necessary to ensure verifiability as outlined above Damonrand (talk) 15:10, 15 June 2013 (UTC) — Damonrand (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    A phone book is also a list of useful information that is difficult to compile, but we don't include lists of phone numbers because Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory. - MrOllie (talk) 20:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I know Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory, this article is not just a list of pointers, it is a table with multiple columns of data for each entry. You may not find it notable because it is not your field of interest but there are plenty of lists in Wikipedia that are useful to specialists in a particular very obscure field, this article should be classed no differently than List_of_web_resources_for_visualizing_molecular_dynamics. Damonrand (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, LFaraone 01:13, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar · · 04:23, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:LINKFARM and WP:ELNO. The topic's obscurity doesn't save this article from pretty clear WP:NOT issues. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:04, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about the other lists I mentioned? List_of_content_management_systems, List_of_microprocessors, etc? The Comparison of 802.15.4 modules at least has comparative information on the merits of the various modules. 12.228.222.229 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Content management systems and Microprocessors are both notable topics, and the individual items on those lists are also notable. That is a substantial difference. I do see the point you're trying to make -- both of those lists also include links to specific products. The difference is that those links are to Wikipedia articles, not vendor/manufacturer sites (which is problematic per WP:ELNO. And that won't change until/unless any of those individual products become notable which, as someone previously speculated, is unlikely to occur. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:55, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As a embedded device developer I can tell that this list is extremely valuable. I looked around and I couldn't find something similar. I thought Wikipedia is about providing knowledge to help people and this list helped me a lot! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.217.102.194 (talk) 22:17, 25 June 2013 (UTC) — 88.217.102.194 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    As well-intentioned as your argument is, your argument actually appears on our list of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions list. While the usefulness of an article is an excellent quality to have, Wikipedia -- for better or worse -- relies on other factors, such as notability, when determining what to cover. Further, I would be very surprised to learn that there is literally no other source for comparing radios such as this. Indeed, if that were the case that would actually be a very strong argument in favor of deletion! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 01:59, 26 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep, Cleanup Keep and clean up this article to be an encyclopedic presentation as the notable solid state implementations of the international wireless standard IEEE 802.15.4. My observations are ...
    1. Information Content. If the vendor links (which appear to be the "spam link" concern) are removed from the comparison table, this comparison would still retain the majority of it's useful information: MCU core, RAM, Flash, Antenna, Sleep, TX, RX, Power, Sensitivity, etc. This table contains substantial information independent the various links.
    2. Verifiable Sources. While the datasheets *do*not* belong an encyclopedic article body... the datasheets *are* clearly professional, verifiable sources of information.
    3. Neutral POV. This article has a neutral point of view. The article does not advocate for any particular entry of information.
    4. Notability. Solid state chips requires fabrication resources beyond the reach of most garage hobbyists; as such, noteworthy solid state instantiations are typically produced by entities with sufficient resources such as companies. In this case, the article summarizes key features for noteworthy solid state instantiations of the international open wireless standard IEEE 802.15.4. IEEE is one of the largest and most notable international, non-profit, professional engineering organization and recognized standards organizations. Basically, this article summarizes the noteworthy solid state implementations of a noteworthy open wireless communication standard.
    Again, my recommendation is to keep and clean up this article to be an encyclopedic presentation as a high quality, neutral information of the noteworthy solid state implementations of the noteworthy international wireless standard IEEE 802.15.4. ... similar to other highly valued comparison "encyclopedic" tables in Wikipedia. H.huff (talk) 00:13, 2 July 2013 (UTC) — H.huff (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • If you can demonstrate that this specific sub-topic of IEEE standards -- that of 802.15.4 radio modules -- is independently notable (which is entirely about coverage in third party sources, not about much of what you describe above -- and please don't take that as harsh, I see where you're coming from I think), then I probably agree with you. But that would require a near total reworking of the current article, from the ground up. Most of the concerns being raised here are about the way the article is fundamentally conceived and structured. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 00:58, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree the article needs rewriting. Please see if the addition information below meets your independently notable concern. H.huff (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sorry if I have difficulties to work with the argumentation frame requested by English Wikipedia deletion policies (other languages are not so self destructing). I already saw how "JSPWiki" has been destroyed shamelessly so I react here and now before it is too late. This page has been extremely useful for me and encouragements to continuously upgrade it would be a lot more useful than discussions about "Should it be there?". Lists are useful when they are not too biassed, rather exhaustive, givig good identification for each elements (with links toward further info) and proposing discriminating criteria between elements. All this is present here and should remain to be continuously improved. For instance, WirelessHART and ISA100.11a modules should be added as the list is too dominated by ZigBee as of today. Deletion would just let all Internet Of Things learners (and they are many) in the dust Christophe Dupriez (talk) 10:03, 4 July 2013 (UTC)— Christophe Dupriez (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

802.15.4 radio modules, independent notability As requested by ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb, below are on some "independent notability" observations specific to 802.15.4 radio modules:

  • 1. "primordial" independent notability. Generally, for a standard to be notable, some implementations must exist. At the most basic and fundamental level, these radio modules (solid state devices) are initial 3rd parties that helped establish 802.15.4 as a notable standard.
  • 2. "tacet" independent notability. Many people are unaware of the many millions of 802.15.4 radio modules already deployed. Annual 802.15.4 radio module shipments were 15 million in 2008 and projected to be around 500 million in 2014. (reuters) (zdnet) These 802.15.4 radio modules are less visible to people than iPhone or Android because the 802.15.4 radio modules are embedded in infrastructure projects like smart parking, environmental monitoring, smart grid/power management, smart commercial buildings, factory automations, and connecting health care devices. Libelium World has a case study in Smart Parking and Environmental Monitoring. Note: Libelium is a 3rd party user of 802.15.4 radio modules. Digi provides various cases where 802.15.4 radio modules are used ... in places where most people are unaware of the 802.15.4 radio module. See also the Digi Learning Center
So, there is a large population segment affected by, yet unaware of, 802.15.4 radio modules in the infrastructure. Ironically, the more effectively 802.15.4 radio modules are placed in the infrastructure, the less people notice ... which creates a substantial, but silent third party.
  • 3. "expressed" independent notability. What follows is a limited sampling of independent 3rd parties which expressly discuss 802.15.4 radio modules in the context of technical parameters, test measurement, how-tos, news, academic articles, conference meetings, online publications, blogs, etc...
BLOG
University
Online Publications
Press Release Channels
Misc. Articles
Books (one can search Amazon or Google books for more)
Forum Discussion

--- H.huff (talk) 22:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've provided a bunch of good sources for an article about 802.15.4, but we have a different article on that, at IEEE 802.15.4. That article is not the subject of this deletion discussion. This discussion is about whether we ought to have a 'comparison' which is really just a product listing. Per WP:NOT, we shouldn't. - MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think, MrOllie's comments miss some points worth considering ...

  • WP:NOT Compliance. The 802.15.4 radio module comparison is compliant with WP:NOT comparison guidelines in that no prices are listed. (I reviewed all instances of compar* in WP:NOT) The module comparison is compliant with the WP:NOT guideline to not have collection of product announcements and rumors. (The comparison is of existing products, not announcements or rumors.) The 802.15.4 radio module comparison is compliant with WP:NOT statement that information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style. (I do not see any favorites or biases in the comparison.)
  • Separate Topics. IEEE 802.15.4 is a Technical standard. A 802.15.4 compliant radio module is an Electronic component. A technical standard specification and a physical device are not the same thing. One exists as a Technical standard document which, in this case, specifies protocol architecture, network model, and data transport architecture . The other exists as physical Electronic component devices which, in this case, has key features such as antenna, transmit power, physical size, interface, memory, and sensitivity ... these physical characteristics not constrained by this IEEE technical standard. From the above source titles alone, one can see keywords like "single-chip", "chip comparison" and "size comparison" that are focused on Electronic components and not the Technical standard. About 85% of the comparison information is about key physical device features such as antenna, transmit power, physical size, interface, memory, and sensitivity which are not part of the IEEE 802.15.4 Technical standard.
Again, a reasonable path forward is that 802.15.4 radio module comparison be recognized as a separate topic from the IEEE standard; and, that the 802.15.4 radio module comparison be cleaned up to meet Wikipedia guidelines similar to other Wikipedia examples like List of computer-aided design editors -- H.huff (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
List of computer-aided design editors says 'If the software you are about to add does not have it's own page established for some time on wikipedia it will be removed from this list.' If we follow that standard on Comparison of 802.15.4 radio modules there would be no list entries. - MrOllie (talk) 20:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of computer-aided design editors does not have the statement 'If the software ... does not have it's own page ... it will be removed from this list.' (Also, this statement does not appear in WP:NOT) However, the List of computer-aided design editors edit tab does state 'Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted. Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited, used, and redistributed—by anyone'
... still, I do see still merit to the point that the article has many verifiable sources not properly footnoted as references and is weak in cross referencing Wikipedia pages.
... there are existing Wikipedia pages that the article does reference. For example, Microchip Technology, Atmel, ARM Cortex-M3, Panasonic, HC08, Digi International, 32-bit ARM7 Crossbow Technology
... there are also some existing Wikipedia pages, that the article could reference, that could replace external links used in the article. For example, XBee, ZigBee, MiWi
... as such, the page needs proper diligence in clean-up which is more than just quick, naive deletions.
Why not give the editors/maintainers of this page a chance to bring the page up to Wikipedia standards? ... and then revisit -- H.huff (talk) 22:46, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is in an edit comment. View the source of the page (or try to edit it) and you will see it. The 'editors/maintainers of this page' have had just over four years to bring this page up to Wikipedia standards. - MrOllie (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify "give a chance", I was thinking of "give a chance with a clear notice/guidance in the article" of what needs to be corrected. History does not show this guidance being provided in article. History does show approximately 15 editor diligently updating (likely to their understanding of guidelines). I would like to believe that the editors of this topic, with express guidance, would responsive positively going forward. Is it not worthwhile to the Wikipedia community to mentor editors making well-intentioned contributions with unintentional mistakes? H.huff (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Simply "List of radio modules" would suffice as a list. A list of 802.15.4 radio modules, where the number denotes what most non-technician people would already consider a specific type of radio module, and then we're getting even more knitty-gritty within that; this is beyond what most of the general public would find to be a useful list. The Mysterious El Willstro (talk) 06:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I would agree that articles should not be presented on the assumption that the reader is well versed in the particular topic's field. If introductory language in the lead and initial sections of the article were added in plain terms so that the concepts can be understood by a literate reader... as recommended by the Wikipedia guidelines ... would you consider this acceptable? I'm thinking of Polymer and List of synthetic polymers as an example which bridge's understanding for a literate reader to a specific topic of solid (but not expert) technical depth. H.huff (talk) 09:14, 4 July 2013 (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/Comparison_of_802.15.4_radio_modules&oldid=1137728295"