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 per Snow - Non-Admin Closure . Fosnez 08:37, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Black box[edit]

Black box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

Fails WP:NEO, no references. I suggest deleting this article and redirecting to Black box (transportation) RucasHost 04:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Not a neologism, While it is a Neologism, which are to be avoided, it does have widespread usage and is established. EG: Black box testing is found in many Computer Science books, as well as all the other disambig entries Q ^{T C} 04:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Really?! Maybe you should add some references to the article. --RucasHost 04:41, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, NOT A NEOLOGISM. A scientific term with many years standing. The airplane black box is not the source of the name (they're orange, actually); it derives its name from the concept. I'm astonished people have not learned this in school, although it is true that the article needs references. --Dhartung | Talk 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• American Heritage Merriam Webster Encarta --Dhartung | Talk 05:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I do want to note that the origin is in fact slang for WW2 avionics, but it is cited as having the generic conceptual meaning as early as 1953, whereas the first flight data recorders date from the late 1950s. All that said, I'm not 100% sure how to organize this page better. Right now it's a bunch of uncited bullet points, but at the same time it isn't appropriate to move (most of) the material to the disambiguation page. Pondering ... --Dhartung | Talk 05:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - sheesh. SolidPlaid 05:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep Per Dhartung's sourcing. I was going to be lazy and just say it's clearly notable, but this is a much better solution. Bfigura ^(talk) 05:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The concept is obviously notable, if the article needs renaming, redircting, amalgamating, improving or disambiguating then do those things, it's no reason to bring it to AfD for deletion. Nick mallory 05:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This concept is used all over the place. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep! Good grief, this term is used all over the place. No-brainer here. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 07:58, 20 September 2007 (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.