Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Return-to-zero, inverted

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was merge and redirect. Tony Sidaway|Talk 13:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Return-to-zero, inverted

Either completely imagined by me, or else so trivial that it shouldn't be included. There are multiple definitions for this, and I don't think anyone really uses it anyway - Omegatron 02:23, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• I have no idea what to do with this, but isn't the article's creator requesting deletion a criteria for a speedy? BigFatDave 02:40, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Ok. I'm an admin now. Can I do it myself? I just wanted to do all that "in the interests of transparency" stuff. - Omegatron 02:49, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

  Make it so. You'll feel better for it :) Grutness|^hello?

• Merge, with redirects, this, Return-to-zero, Non-return-to-zero and Non-return-to-zero, inverted into one article under a title such as Signal encodings. It is confusing rather than helpful to have them as separate articles. Note that they are recording standards, eg. mag tape, as well as transmission methods. -- RHaworth 06:58, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)
• Merge, concur with RHaworth. Megan1967 07:26, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  Yes, but what is the definition of RZI? Also see line code for the all-encompassing article you want. - Omegatron 12:12, Apr 16, 2005 (UTC)

• Merge as per User:RHaworth. --cesarb 01:47, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Merge with Return to Zero, according to that article, this candidate is incorrect anyway... StuartH 07:10, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.