Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of EDGE networks (2nd nomination)

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 delete. Can't redirect since the one "redirect" opinion doesn't say where to. Sandstein 07:51, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

List of EDGE networks[edit]

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

This list is neither notable (WP:NN), nor (WP:VER). Further it is outdated and incomplete as it is not maintained (anymore). It is therefore no good source for research and does not comply to (WP:NOT and WP:AIM). Nightwalker-87 (talk) 16:37, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as still questionable for better improvements considering this is noticeably unsourced. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:22, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:43, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Music1201 ^talk 02:23, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Keep nominator has started extensive editing since nominating, improving article. I also see other recent edits indicating that the list is maintained.
Redirect as all 3G and 4G networks support EDGE as well and I can't find a single network that supports EDGE but not at least 3G DeVerm (talk) 03:51, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I only removed content that would be deleted anyway because of WP:VER. I'm not maintaining the article. If I proceed according to WP:VER and WP:NOT there will be almost no content left. This is a point to think about! This is not in conflict with this proposal. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by editing, you are contributing to the article. If you want to delete it, you should not actively contribute to it. You can't delete parts in anticipation of AfD outcome. On WP:VER I have asked editors at the teahouse about their thoughts over your edits/removals (no pointers to articles, editors, just hypothetical), some of which came very shortly after you put the tag in there, which you can read about here: Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#unreferenced_section:_how_much_time_before_deleting_the_section.3F. In short: it is not clear how to exactly handle this, but you should not delete unreferenced sections when you don't know if they are false (when they are false then delete); instead, you can discuss this on the talk page of the article. Remember that there is no deadline on WP. For the outcome of this AfD I do not see much, if any, difference with your previous attempt, so assume the outcome to be the same as well. DeVerm (talk) 19:49, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See it as you like. The result I can derive from your comment and agree with is the following: For the future I'll wait 3-4 weeks after tagging sections before removing content. If there is no opposition or reaction/improvements during this period concerning the tagged content I'll proceed. If articles don't seem to comply to WP:NOT and WP:NOTE and there is no active maintenance, and no reaction within 4 weeks I can assume that there will be not response at all and don't see a reason why not to proceed WP:BOLD as I can still rely on WP:NOT / WP:NOTE and having waited for a response. WP:NOT / WP:NOTE is further not related to a "deadline", it targets all articles and treats all content equally. I don't mind if this proposal fails. All that counts are the respective wiki guidelines that have been cited so far and as far as I can see there is nothing wrong apart the slight concern that a recent timespan might have been to short. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 20:23, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't do that. We are trying to make WP better and the primary method is to make articles better. Before tagging: "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." (from WP:VER). You should not tag to prepare for deleting, but for trying to get citations to support the text. Also, following guidance given at the Teahouse, start a discussion on the talk page before deleting whole sections. The "there is no deadline" is for the whole of WP. WP:NORUSH gives specific guidance over the deletion of content. I quote: "Wikipedia is not paper and has no need to work towards a deadline. There is no finished version expected soon, and it is perfectly acceptable to let the editing process fashion an article up to our standards eventually. And if it takes a long time for that process to work, so what? Wikipedia is a work in progress, and will always remain so. There is no publication date and Wikipedia does not have to be finished today. It merely needs to have improved on yesterday. Perfection is neither desired nor achievable." DeVerm (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To demonstrate my objection to tagging with the intent to delete, I have undone one removal of sections, removed the template as well and added a cite as required. It took me only seconds to find the cite about China Telecom offering EDGE service; if you had done so then you would have known the text was right, just unreferenced but with references available... so not have deleted the section, right? This is why it is recommended to see if there are references before deleting. The burden to add them is not on you, but you can wait for others to add them when you know they exist.

Now this may come as a surprise but I actually don't care for this list either, so I am going to change my !vote to delete, explaining my reasoning there. DeVerm (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, the main point is not only WP:VER, but also WP:NOTE and WP:NOT. Seen from the latter point the answer is that it would be either easier to list all networks that do NOT support EDGE (which aren't very many) as it is easier to maintain and manage. It is also not worth the work to spend on and so far there is not too much work that has been spent on this list so far. In the context of EGDE beeing state-of-the-art, this list simply does not make any sense. The other option I see is what you just proposed. Nightwalker-87 (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2016 (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.