Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio source: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Spacepotato (talk | contribs) debate cat, keep |
→Radio source: Strong Keep |
||
Line 8:
*'''Keep'''an d either redirect to the good existing article on the subject [[radio astronomy]] or improve to nan adequate introduction, like the equivalent in deWP. This was a careless nomination, made in apparent lack of knowledge of the general subject, a demonstrated lack of willingness to even look at google, and a odd lack of understanding that there might be relevant articles on Wikipedia. . I have removed some irrelevant vandalism from the article. But this is a very unsophisticated article that needs major expansion. '''[[User:DGG|DGG]]''' ([[User talk:DGG|talk]]) 06:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep'''—Important astronomy concept. The [http://www.britannica.com/bps/topic/488960/radio-source Encyclopedia Britannica] has an article on them, and so should we. [[User:Spacepotato|Spacepotato]] ([[User talk:Spacepotato|talk]]) 07:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
*'''Strong keep''' The article needs some development but to suggest that it fails on [[WP:RS]] is, well, surprising; Bradv has highlighted that aspect with some examples. On what basis was the claim of original research made? Surely not just on the absence of references: that would be irresponsible. I don't believe this article should have been brought to AfD. --- [[User:Taroaldo|Taroaldo]] ([[User talk:Taroaldo|talk]]) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
| |||