This article was nominated for deletion on 23 April 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was redirect to Electronics.

I don't really see the justification for undoing this page as a redirect. The edit summary says that it has too many incoming links, but that is still ok for a redirect, I'm sure the servers can cope. The page is not very informative, the material is better covered at Electronics where it used to be redirected. SpinningSpark 06:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this was long ago a stub that would probably have developed as a good article if it had not been converted into a redirect. I do feel that an electronic device (or electronic equipment) is conceptually different from electronics: while the former is a product (i.e. a material thing), the latter is a field of sciences that deals with abstract concepts; because of this, they theoretically deserved independent articles. But I won't oppose to it becoming a redirect again if enough people argue in favor of this. --capmo 06:29, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I very much doubt that many others, if any, are watching this page. If you want a wider debate you will probably have to take it elsewhere. The original version was not a stub, it was a dicdef, which is not suitable for Wikipedia. The material now added is a few general comments, some of which are debatable. If you want to write an informative, well-sourced article to go here that would be good. But in the meantime I think the reader would be better off with a redirect to the electronics article. SpinningSpark 09:30, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would anyone be willing to join in this discussion? This stub article was converted into a redirect, but I have reasons to believe it should stay as an article. Your opinions will be appreciated. Thanks, --capmo 19:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Just for information, this page has been a redirect since 14 September 2003 and the page that was there before was no more than a definition. SpinningSpark 06:23, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To say that something should stay the way it is just because it has been so since "1850" isn't a valid premise for me. I invite everyone to read the reasoning I wrote above in favor of this change, and please reply with sound arguments. --capmo 15:56, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not advance strawman arguments, it is very annoying, I said no such thing. I was merely correcting the erroneous impression that this page had recently been an article. It has never been even as much as a stub. Why don't you just wait to see if others have a view? SpinningSpark 16:07, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]