Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S-Bus

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. Drmies (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

S-Bus[edit]

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

This article claims that S-BUS is "targeting to become the Asian and African Standard protocol " for intelligent buildings. The text of the page was recently edited to change the name to "BusPro" without changing the page title. I suspect that this is an attempt at commercial promotion, but in any case, I'm not seeing any evidence that this has, in fact become a standard, or even exists, under either name other than on the HDL Automation website that promotes it. I suggest that the page is returned to its original function as a redirect to SBus (which is a different thing). SpinningSpark 00:59, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~Wrong forum~~ AfD is for discussion about worthless articles, not content disputes like this one that belong on the talk page of the article, in RFC on the talk page of the article, or in the yet-to-be-implemented central forum for merge/redirect discussion. Unscintillating (talk) 02:14, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- As per WP:Deletion policy, this discussion "may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum.". Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Unscintillating: I think you have misunderstood, my deletion rationale is that the subject is non-notable. That is very much an issue for this forum. The change of name is a side-issue, but the promotional inspiration for doing this makes the article even less desirable. SpinningSpark 16:29, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
But your deletion argument appears to me to seek to coerce the content to be the content of your choice. That is a content dispute. If you are correct that your preferred content is notable and the content to which you object is not, you can achieve your desired result without AfD. What is your objection to moving forward with the central discussion forum for merge/redirect? Respectfully, Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You really are missing the point. The SBus article is completely unrelated to the subject of the article I am nominating for deletion. A merge is utterly inappropriate, as explained by NapoliRoma below. The similarity in name is merely a disambiguation issue. Yes, I could have unilaterally simply turned the page into a redirect, but I did not consider that to be appropriate as it would be deletion by the back door. To be clear, I propose delete and redirect rather than a simple edit to the page. S-Bus is a non-notable network protocol, whereas SBus is a well-established computer bus standard. SpinningSpark 18:10, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, since "delete and redirect" is an argument for deletion, I'll strike my !vote. Have you considered other possible merge targets? Unscintillating (talk) 20:40, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't have a merge suggestion, and I wouldn't be in favour of merging uncited promotional material in any case. SpinningSpark 22:26, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "its original function as a redirect to SBus" is not strictly correct.

The origin of the article was an editor adding material about the S-Bus protocol to the existing (and unrelated) article SBus and at the same time creating S-Bus as a redirect to SBus.

I fixed that by moving the content to S-Bus, making it into a standalone article as should have been done in the first place.--NapoliRoma (talk) 05:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If deleted this should redirect to SBus, since it is found as an alternate spelling of that topic also. -- 65.94.171.217 (talk) 21:30, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could not find reliable secondary sources that say "Buspro" is WP:N. A search for the alleged "Patent No: 201110123081.0" (something that looks more in the manner of a design patent or a patent application), turns up some documents about "Smart Bus" (Generation-4 SBUS) including an extensive protocol specification. Also links to a domain http://smarthomebus.com, "The Home of Smart-Bus". A google search for "Buspro" turns up other products such as a battery charger of the same name but unrelated? Searching for "Smart Bus" leads me to http://www.smartbus.org, which is a website about Michigan public tranportation rather than a website promoting the protocol. From a technical standpoint, the article is uninteresting (e.g., 9600 baud). The technology is old (e.g., RS-485), and its design goals are suspect (e.g., no terminations). The claim of "64000 Devices in one single Net" seems fantastic for RS-485 hardware (yes, the protocol may support 16-bit addressing, but that does not mean you can connect that many devices). Also, who wants 16,000,000 devices communicating at 9600 baud? The article wants notability by association, but that association is just name dropping: "Many Other Manufacturers and Giant Technologies where [sic] the source of inspiration"; "Industry Giants that we have learned from...." The article is WP:FUTURE: "with clear targets to become the world’s new standard of automation Industry". One of those targets is "6. To create a consortium of many manufacturers that can create solutions as PnP". In other words, other manufacturers have not come on board yet. The hoped-for products list is a wish list rather than an accomplishment (and the goal seems to say "Buspro" over and over). "Buspro Enabled Dimmers" seems to be the wrong technology: compare X10 (industry standard) powerline communication. The article does not provide sources. My take is that Buspro currently fails WP:N, so the article is inappropriate right now. In addition, I believe Buspro fails WP:DUE, so a merge is inappropriate. The article sounds in advertising for a single company's product line. Glrx (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:14, 22 August 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.