Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FCC Mark

: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 no consensus. The article was substantially expanded after January 8, and earlier opinions may not be applicable any more.  Sandstein  19:22, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

=[[FCC Declaration of Conformity]]=

:{{la|FCC Declaration of Conformity}} – (View AfDView log)

:({{Find sources|FCC Declaration of Conformity}})

An entire article already exists on the FCC. This does not require a new three sentence article. The Haz talk 16:33, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

:Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:06, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Delete "FCC mark" is referenced to two advertisements for product testing companies. At the FCC website, the specific term is not found: [http://transition.fcc.gov/aboutus.html]. A Google search for "FCC mark" less Wikipedia related sites produces only some companies which offer testing services, and people who work for the FCC who are named "Mark." Unless a reliable source is produced showing that this is an official term, no merger to the FCC article is necessary. Someone might find reliable sources, then it could be merged to the FCC (edited to add:)Title 47 CFR Part 15 article. It is appropriate to include important logos in the article about the organization, but not every logo needs a stand-alone article. Edison (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Answering the concerns:
  1. Not notable in itself?
    FCC label is familiar even in Asia. But the name 'Federal Communications Commission' is not.
  2. We have the article Federal Communications Commission. Hence no separate article is necessary?
    This article is on the FCC certification label, or what is officially the 'FCC Declaration of Conformity'. It is not about the organization, it is about the mark and hence is a separate topic. Federal Communications Commission is not just about EMI certification. They do a lot of other jobs too. The labelling is about the EMI certification which is known worldwide. And there are people out there who still think that FCC is all about EMI regulation, because of the FCC label which is more famous than the organization itself. See this [http://www.bureauveritas.com/wps/wcm/connect/bv_com/group/home/about-us/our-business/our-business-consumer-products/resources/frequently+asked+questions/fcc]
  3. Few lines?
    The article has already grown from a few lines. And it is growing. It is only 2 days now.
  4. FCC mark is not found in a search?
    Try FCC label.
  5. A logo does not need a separate article?
    Probably true (But there could be even cases when we might need one, when there is a long history about it), and see these: Pepsi Globe, Steelmark, and the categories :Category:Logos and :Category:Trademarks. But here, this is not about the logo of Federal Communications Commission. This is about the certification mark. Just like the CE mark.
  6. References link to 2 testing companies?
    Wrong. That was one test firm and the second was a certified manufacturer. I am not affiliated to either :) That was what I got when I searched first. Try "FCC mark" in google, you'll get the same results. But they are significant here to prove that such a certification indeed exists and that there are infact test firms and manufacturers around to whom this FCC mark is significant. And again that the industry indeed calls it the 'FCC mark'. But I have now renamed the title to what the commission officially calls it (FCC Declaration of Conformity), because it is what Wikipedia requires in its policy guidelines in naming articles.
    Thanks fellow editors. You were my inspiration for the work that followed. Austria156 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Deryck C. 22:32, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment Just to clarify the history of the article's shifting subject, Austria156 created the article as "FCC mark," not a commonly used term, then moved it to "FCC label," then moved it to the present "FCC Declaration of Conformity." Among the article's references, only the FCC links and the "Bureau Veritas Group" commercial site use the term "Declaration of Conformity." It still deserves no more than a couple of lines in the FCC (edited to add Title 47 CFR Part 15 article, which is specifically about the part of the FCC rules and regulations which necessitate such a mark and testing procedure. To satisfy notability, it should have significant coverage by multiple reliable and independent sources. Not every word someone has typed into an article needs to be merged into the target article. I do not see mention of RFI compliance testing and the mark required on manufactured goods to show compliance in the FCC article, so a merge would improve that article. A better merge target would be Title 47 CFR Part 15, but again some mention of the testing would improve the main FCC article. Edison (talk) 23:14, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

:Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Armbrust, B.Ed. Let's talkabout my edits? 14:35, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

  • This is an encyclopedia. It should give relevant information to the users. Over and above all the technicalities which could be raised, this article should remain if it serves any encyclopedic purpose, and be removed if not. Take this situation: Someone sees the FCC logo on an electronic equipment. Doesn't know what it mean. Haven't ever heard the name 'Federal Communications Commission'. Might makeout from the logo that it reads FCC (even though the stylised logo is a little ambiguous). So searches the web for FCC and gets lost in the tonnes of the Federal Commission's literature. Then he/she might try a common sense approach. Tries something like 'FCC mark' or 'FCC label'. Of course an "FCC label" search in google would bring him/her what he/she is looking for. In fact this had happened to me 10 years back. As an (electronics) engineering student (then), I knew what Federal Communications Commission was, but did not understand what the FCC logo on an equipment really meant. I found it after spending a few hours in one of the popular search engines of the 90s. Now I am giving this info to the world. Let this be here if somebody would benefit from my work. Else remove it. I am not particular that this article should remain as a standalone one. If apppropriate, it could be merged. But note that the article 'Federal Communications Commission' is on the commission. And the commission was established for other businesses, emi regulation is just one of them. The article Title 47 CFR Part 15 briefs the part 15 regulations (and it is yet not encyclopedia like, look more like a copy-paste). As of now, the FCC mark is used for part 18 devices in addition to part 15, and previously some of these devices were classified under other parts of the regulation as well. And in the present case, how will we include part 18 provisions in Title 47 CFR Part 15 (Look at the redirects to the article before commenting)? Please understand this: This article is not a law book or a white paper. This article gives encylopedic information on the FCC emi conformity certification to the curious consumer (like me). (We will provide appropriate links to Title 47 CFR Part 15. And also links to Part 18 literature, if available in wiki). So isn't it obvious that it is better to have a separate article for the 'FCC mark/label'? If we shall follow conventions, the article on 'CE mark' and :Category:Federal Communications Commission, a whole category of articles (they were never merged to Federal Communications Commission) would justify my argument. For example see the artice Universal Licensing System: What argument do you have in favor of keeping this as a separate article, rather than shrinking and merging it to FCC? So I repeat the stand, and I think it is a just one: That this is a distinct topic, and is large enough already to stand as a separate article. And give time, it will grow. Thanks. Austria156 (talk) 19:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment - Note that at the time of this post, the article has been expanded, and currently has eleven references. Northamerica1000(talk) 22:20, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Not with what seem like reliable secondary sources. Merge to FCC. Drmies (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep as the article has been expanded and sources added. Either way deletion is not the correct solution here. A412 (Talk * C) 03:30, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Keep The argument that we should have only one article about a national agency as important as the FCC makes very little sense to me. Using that line of reasoning, we could merge all the US agencies and departments into United States Government. The topic by itself here is sufficiently distinctive and referenced. DGG ( talk ) 05:26, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

: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.