Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Control and Indicating Equipment

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 of the debate was keep, this article was recently expanded and many of the delete votes were based on the article being a substub. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:11, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Control and Indicating Equipment[edit]

Lack of information and generalisation. _→AzaToth 20:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep: virtually useless as it stands, but this does seem to be an accepted technical term in the fire alarm industry and one or two others, so might with a lot of work become of some value.Staffelde 02:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is being relisted to generate a clearer consensus. Please add new discussion below this notice. Thanks!
W.marsh 23:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, better than nothing. Kappa 09:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' too general Maustrauser 09:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a substub, with no substantive information. As a member of the IEE and subscriber to their Computing & Control journal, as well as baing a former real-time control systems developer, I do not know of any significant usage of this terminology to describe this class of equipment. Control equipment, yes, but "Control and Indicating Equipment" (however capitalised) no. Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C] 14:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 608 google hits. It's a term of art occuring in various ISO and National Standards publications. If we spent as much time expanding the stub as trying to delete it, we'd have a better wikipedia Mccready 14:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it's useless, it should go, as per JzG Pete.Hurd 04:55, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To those who favored deletion I'd be grateful if you could look at the work I've done on the article and reconsider. Thanks Mccready 15:29, 15 February 2006 (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.