Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Compelled signalling

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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 00:28, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Compelled signalling[edit]

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

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

Article has been unsourced since Jan 2007. Notability of topic is in question. Coin945 (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 09:34, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, the nominator does not propose a valid WP:DEL-REASON. The nominator does not say which notability guideline this article fails to meet. SailingInABathTub (talk) 10:28, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the article was indeed unsourced but now no longer is. JanCeuleers (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a very clear Violation of our guidelines against dictionary definitions. Back before 2010 people went around creating dictionary definition articles for all sorts of things. Many have been removed, but those that refered to very specific things have often survived. As far as I can tell this does seem to be a dictionary definition.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Signaling (telecommunications) where it is mentioned.--Rusf10 (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, further sources added. SailingInABathTub (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SailingInABathTub's additional sourcing supports notability. PianoDan (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the addition of sources which seem to resolve the only issue at hand (that it was unsourced). I do not know what the "dictionary definition" thing is about (this is a multiple-paragraph explanation of a concept as it relates to other concepts): articles which explain what a thing is in depth are certainly in scope for Wikipedia. jp×g 22:46, 14 April 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.