Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio source
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Itub (talk | contribs) at 09:31, 2 April 2008 (closed as snowball keep). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 09:31, 2 April 2008 by Itub (talk | contribs) (closed as snowball keep)
- 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 per WP:SNOW. Non-admin closure. Itub (talk) 09:31, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Radio source (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (delete) – (View log)
original research, not verified, no RS NewAtThis (talk) 02:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy keep. Did you even look? How about this one? —BradV 03:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- rename to astronomical radio source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.9.57 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Keepan 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. DGG (talk) 06:20, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep—Important astronomy concept. The Encyclopedia Britannica has an article on them, and so should we. Spacepotato (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- 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. --- Taroaldo (talk) 07:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment See escalating ANI case. --Dhartung | Talk 08:37, 2 April 2008 (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.