Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Remote Indicating Systems

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The result was keep - nomination withdrawn. I'll close this not least because it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere. PhilKnight (talk) 17:45, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remote Indicating Systems

Notability concerns - lack of significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. PhilKnight (talk) 14:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there are enough reliable sources to indicate there is the possibility that this could be built into a decent article. SilkTork *^YES! 14:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SilkTork, could you name a single reliable source that provides non-trivial coverage? Are you suggesting the article should rely on sources from before 1945? PhilKnight (talk) 14:26, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The date of the reliable source has never been an issue - we use Britannica 1911, though admittedly that's a problematic source. The dates of the books in that search vary and a good number are from the 1960s and 1970s. Doing a quick search by one of the trade names turned up this - [1] and this - [2], and a search on the other turned up this - [3]. That's enough to convince me that there's enough material out there to build this article when someone is interested or motivated enough. The system existed, has been written about by enough reliable sources to establish it's significance and notabilty, and forms part of the history of aviation. I can see someone coming upon the term and wishing to discover more - which is where we come in. SilkTork *^YES! 14:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- VG ☎ 14:42, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we use older sources for history articles etc, but for a technology article? Looking in more detail at the book publication dates, there are 8 from 1970-2008, all of which are trivial. In addition, there are 22 from 1960-1970, which appear to be trivial, although in some cases it's hard to tell from the snippet view provided. Anyway, I'll withdraw the nomination if you add a citation to a reliable secondary source that provides non-trivial coverage. PhilKnight (talk) 14:56, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obviously notable, after the hoards of sources found by SilkTork. Things can be notable, even if they are obsolete, so the publishing date of the sources is completely irrelevant. Arsenikk ^(talk) 17:39, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Arsenikk, could you link to a reliable source, whether found by SilkTork, or anyone else? PhilKnight (talk) 22:03, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rotary variable differential transformer. Such devices are still widely used in avionics. Squidfryerchef (talk) 19:38, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We cover older technology as much as current , if there are sources. The article however needs to clarify if the technology is current, and should have current as well as older references if it is. Whether this is properly part of the article mentioned above by Squidfryerchef needs to be discussed by people with a subject knowledge on a talk page. It is highly recommended that when the question is sourcing or notability, to do at least a simple gsearch before making nominations here, and in fact it really ought to be required to prevent nominations like this one, or at least make it obvious they are being made despite the apparent sources. DGG (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, we cover subjects if there is significant coverage. Could you link to a reliable source that provides non-trivial coverage? PhilKnight (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability established. Not any question that Wikipedia covers both "historical" and "current" topics. Wily D 15:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article has been unsourced for 2 years. I'm not sure what you're trying to say, however given the article is still completely unsourced, notability hasn't been established. PhilKnight (talk) 15:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Err, if you read this discussion, we've established notability as a fact here. That it's not duplicated in the article isn't really here nor there - we know that the subject of the article meets the usual notability standards, whether that's explicitly made clear in the article or not. Wily D 16:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you link to a reliable source that provides non-trivial coverage? If the answer is 'no', then notability isn't established. PhilKnight (talk) 17:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been done, in spite of your instances to the contrary. Additionally, if you'd bother to read WP:N before trying to apply it, you'd see that "linking" isn't part of establishing notability. Wily D 17:42, 3 November 2008 (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.