- 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 merge. Y.Ichiro (会話) 04:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Digital Opportunity Index (DOI) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
violation of WP:SPAM, clearly an advert for a NN business; author has removed the request for speedy delete SkierRMH 00:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks pretty non-notable to me. --humblefool® 00:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Merge, then. Still not enough there to justify an article. --humblefool® 14:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and other above... Cbrown1023 00:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]Delete per nom -- ßottesiηi (talk) 00:48, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Cleanup per Slgrandson -- ßottmiesiηi (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Comment: Just wait! Google has 23,700 exact results. Should we just consider rewriting it? --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 00:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete 27,000 results is a testament to good search engine optimisation skills, not neccessarily assertion of notability. •Elomis• 02:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
*Delete per above nom's Missvain 03:45, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge Though it was reformatted and more information given, if this is all the information avaiable, it should be merged. Missvain 15:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - Per nom. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 13:34, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable WP:SPAM.--John Lake 19:28, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into International Telecommunication Union Not looking like spam at all anymore.--John Lake 18:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an advert/promo article has no place on Wikipedia. Does not meet notability guidelines either.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge to International Telecommunication Union, as humble stated above there is not enough information for this to be a stand alone article.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 14:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hello? This is not even slightly spammy! Merge to International Telecommunication Union or Keep. I was all ready to jump on the evil spammers, but this is CLEARLY not spam! There is no way that an agency of the UN feels the need to spam Wikipedia! This is clearly bureaucratic, governmental jargon, and probably not yet notable enough for it's own article (although the very similar Human Development Index has its own article), but there's plenty of room for it in the article about the agency that originated it. And if it continues to be a UN standard, there's every chance it will come to deserve its own article before long (if it doesn't already). And guess what? I figured all this out with only a couple of minutes of research, mostly without even leaving Wikipedia! Xtifr tälk 10:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I've rewritten the article to make it a lot more clear that this is a UN standard, and I've put some information about the index into the article about the ITU agency, so we can easily go with either merge or keep now. Xtifr tälk 11:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Original proposer - would highly urge a merge with International Telecommunication Union; still nothing to indicate that this should be a stub.SkierRMH 21:10, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment in light of a fairly clear concensus to merge, I've fixed the DAB page at DOI to point to International Telecommunication Union#Standards, where the index is mentioned, and moved the original article to Digital Opportunity Index, as a better location for a redirect (and, likewise, a better place for the article if an unexpected last-minute consensus to keep turns up). Xtifr tälk 22:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Late dissenter: While this is something invented by the ITU, people may come across this out-of-context, and following a link into a much more general article is a confusing experience for the newcomers. Cost of having a separate article is low (I think). WRT comments about 27.000 hits being "search engine optimization": Look at WHERE those hits come from. People USE that concept. --Alvestrand 05:40, 20 November 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.