Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Artificial sunlight

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The result was nomination withdrawn . Non-admin closure.Note: this may be my last non-admin closure I'll make as a non-admin. MuZemike 13:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Artificial sunlight (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log)

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

Although this article cites sources, it appears to be primarily WP:OR and WP:SYNTHESIS. The term 'artificial sunlight' is widely used, but there's no clear definition for the term, beyond the obvious one that it's an attempt to simulate natural sunlight. There's a lot of words in this article, but very little actual content. Also note that this article was the subject of an improvement drive in 2008. Even with that attention the article still has no clear subject or raison d'etre. Pburka (talk) 17:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I've just found the article Full-spectrum light which appears to cover most of the same ground, but in a much more organized fashion. If others agree, I'd be content with a redirect to Full-spectrum light. Pburka (talk) 18:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

*I don't know about a redirect because both articles seem to be about different (albeit similar) subjects. I'd say keep both. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC) Actually, after looking at the sources, the article is fine, but the title appears to be made up. Maybe it should be merged per above after all. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 18:57, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • What exactly is the subject of the Artificial sunlight article? It's not clear to me that it has one. Pburka (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the sources which establish notability. Ikip (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which sources are you referring to specifically? Pburka (talk) 18:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep probably the best term for this. As for sources, see the 2100 G scholar results listed as part of the nomination procedure, or the 843 listings in G Books [1] Not all are relevant, but at least half are. DGG ( talk ) 20:24, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Doesn't seem to be anything particularly wrong with this. I would suggest using the talkpages to discuss a merge, as it's probably a bit beyond AfD. Quantpole (talk) 22:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That said, I go back to my previous stand of keeping both articles. THE AMERICAN METROSEXUAL 22:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the feedback. I withdraw the deletion nomination. I've started editing the article to try to bring it up to Wikipedia standards. Pburka (talk) 22:41, 12 September 2009 (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.