Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Independent System Operator

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. (non-admin closure) Timotheus Canens (talk) 02:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Independent System Operator

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

the content of this article has been included in a new article that more accurately conveys the information ISO_RTO Smbateman (talk) 18:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unless the copyright violation can be corrected in the merged article. The newly created article ISO_RTO appears to be a malformed merge of the old article Independent System Operator and the related article Regional Transmission Organization. As it stands, the copy and paste merged article needs to be deleted. Some text from Independent System Operator was copied and pasted into ISO_RTO. Example:"An Independent System Operator (ISO) is an organization formed at the direction or recommendation of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). In the areas where an ISO is established, it coordinates, controls and monitors the operation of the electrical power system, usually within a single US State, but sometimes encompassing multiple states." Some new language was apparently also added: I do not have a utility to automatically compare the new article with the two old articles to see what text is the same. A merge is the proper response to the need to substitute one article for two, not the copy and paste creation of one article and the deletion of the two source articles. This violates the rules for crediting authorship of the source text. For this to be legitimate, a completely new text would be required. I do not object to the end result of merging the two articles, since there is some commonality, as long as it is made clear they are different things (like a Constable is different in the US from a Sheriff even though they do law enforcement in a county. Maybe this can be fixed by a history merge. See Wikipedia:How to fix cut-and-paste moves. Edison (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is a very good point and I'm glad you brought it up. The merge did not seem a reasonable option at the time and I never intended to violate a rule. I will address the language replication issue this week and ask for a peer review. Smbateman (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It seems to me that ISO and RTO are distinct but related entities. As such, there is no valid reason to delete this article. -- Whpq (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and discuss how our content about electricity distribution in the US should be organised on article talk pages or at the relevant project pages. Even if this isn't kept as a separate page it should certainly be at least a redirect, and ISO RTO is a very uninformative article title, so that is not the best name for any merged article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:25, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content about electricity distribution in the US should be re-organized, a hierarchy should be outlined and detail added, with the provisions for changes which are underway with these organizations control the grid. The US Grid is under-going upgrades & changes, (smart-grid efforts), and work needs to be done to clarify this hierarchy, ie, (FERC/DoE, ISO/RTO, PUC) and the scope of oversight they provide. Also a US ISO/RTO map should be added. -- (Don Doughty) 18:51, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Phil Bridger. If someone wants to delete two articles that have some history with a new article that does not appear to be formatted like most articles, I wonder what the advantage of switching is? The better approach might be to fold the new material and references into the old articles. I don't see any reason to switch to an alphabet soup article name. We improve by adding to and updating existing articles and not deleting what is here and replacing with something new. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it - this information is very helpful as the industry expands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.201.208.194 (talk) 18:51, 11 January 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.