Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/False clock

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. -- Cirt (talk) 02:39, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

False clock

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

A fancy way of saying that a clock can be wrong. Article was WP:PRODed, Prod was removed with the assertion that "a stub is better than nothing." Although refs have been added, the article has not been expanded one iota on the basis of those new refs. To a lay person this an essentially useless article as it tells us nothing of substance. There is no evidence that this is a notable engineering concept. Wikipedia is not the glossary for an engineering textbook, or if you prefer, WP:NOTDIC. The sources are puffery and were clearly not actually used as the article is still a word-for-word copy of a government document. In short: What this is is explained in tech-speak and why it is important is not explained at all. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:08, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. -- • Gene93k (talk) 00:24, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A dictionary definition that is unlikely to ever be expanded. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:18, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Transwiki to wiktionary it is a dictionary definition, those go on wiktionary. This article describes a specific failure case in telecom engineering. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge This is a stub not a dictionary definition as there is no lexical content and the the title is a phrase not a word. If the content seems too small then it should be merged into a larger article such as clock signal. This is our editing and deletion policy. Colonel Warden (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it came out of a government dictionary, verbatim, so it is a dictionary definition. 76.66.200.95 (talk) 06:00, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per nom. Ravenswing 16:20, 19 October 2010 (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.