- 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)
- Speedy keep. Did you even look? How about this one? —BradV 03:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- rename to astronomical radio source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.9.57 (talk) 05:17, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)