Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reverse charging (battery)

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 DELETE —Wh o uk (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse charging (battery)[edit]

I am deleting the nominated article. However, as Reverse charging has been reverted to a version prior to the disambig page that was co-nominated, and subsequent to which there was only one delete vote, I'm going to leave that in place as having not had any really discussion. It can be brought to AfD on its own merits if desired. —Wh o uk (talk) 15:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article contributes nothing that is not already in the battery article, or should be. The disambiguation makes no sense, as the phrase for reversing the charges on a phone call is "reversing the charges", not "reverse charging", and there is no chance of an eventual Wikipedia article there, as it is a simple dicdef (as is "reverse charging (battery). This article is nothing.Fnarf999 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the related article Reverse charging which contains the disambiguation to Reverse charging (phone call) which article does not exist, cannot exist.Fnarf999 19:25, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete both for reasons stated above. Most of the first article is a list of information on the proper use, recharging and storage of batteries, which belongs in the battery article. The phone call information is wrong -- it's called "reversing the charges" not "reverse charging" Fnarf999 19:27, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete both These are not encyclopedic articles and can never be. Frankly I think they both should be speedied --DV8 2XL 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Before someone turned reverse charging into a disambiguation page there was an article on chargine batteries with the wrong polarity that barely passes the bar. Reverse charging (battery) does not. Delete Reverse charging (battery) as a poor duplicate. Dr Zak 00:46, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the older form of the article was (barely) tolerable. Trying to sort out all the subsequent edits is a nightmare, though. But I would support deleting the one, and reverting the other. Fnarf999 01:05, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both Waste of time. Runcorn 21:19, 15 May 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.