Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiCast (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 keep. For now, per Qwaiiplayer: This dab page's existence depends on the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MobiCast (cellular networking). Sandstein 19:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MobiCast (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a disambiguation page for two pages for two different topics which had been agglomerated into a single page. Neither topic appeared, in itself, notable. After discussion with Kvng, I split the two topics each into their own independent page, added hatnotes, changed the main page to a disambiguation page, nominated the two new pages for PROD, and this one for AfD (2nd). This whole process was complicated somewhat by vandalism halfway through. If one of the two independent pages survives PROD for some reason, it can be brought back into this page. Otherwise, as seems most likely, all three should go. Bill Woodcock (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, agreed. We'll know in thirty-three hours. Bill Woodcock (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Contested. Now we need to wait for the AfD to complete. ~Kvng (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I just added the Microsoft Research Mobicast project to this disambiguation page (which doesn’t have its own article at present). (‘Mobicast’ is such a generic name that the disambiguation page should probably remain even if some of the linked articles didn’t exist.) WP:TIND Jim Grisham (talk) 07:16, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: since this page contains a non-trivial edit history, it should probably be re-named to one of the child pages, with a brand new re-direct page then created in its place using the existing contents, right? Jim Grisham (talk) 07:22, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The plan was to delete all three, since nobody has suggested that any of them describe anything notable, but if you want to have a disambiguation page distinguishing three non-notable things which were proposed by someone once, and never became real... I guess? I'm not sure I see the point, but I wouldn't argue with you. Bill Woodcock (talk) 11:38, 11 January 2022 (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.