Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Airy Points
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- 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. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 14:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Airy Points
Non notable. No sources. Been orphaned for nearly 2 years. Delete Metal Head (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Keep I have no idea what that means, but Harvard seems to think it is important at http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1966AmJPh..34..419P and there are other links as well. Pharmboy (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Strong Keep It's perfectly legitimate, and reasonably notable. The language is too technical for easy understanding, and I'm not sure I can help much there, but I'll see if I can improve the refs. Tim Ross·talk 16:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment Unless this article is improved, it should be deleted. It's been like this for 2 years.Metal Head (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
-
- Comment: The policy is simple. We do not need to keep a page for years if no one will ever touch it. That is worthless.Metal Head (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- And how long has that been a Wikipedia policy? J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The policy is pretty clear and you don't even have to read the whole policy to find it. In the nutshell section of WP:Deletion policy it states: Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion Every editor is OBLIGATED to research a topic before nominating it, to insure it is truly not notable and they are not just wasting other's time. Pharmboy (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I did research it but I did not find that Harvard article. (I found a video game though) I nominated it because, at the time, I could see nothing notable about it. It had been in the same way for a long time. Thus the nomination.Metal Head (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment And I believe you did in good faith, but your interpretation of the deletion policy is misguided, based on your comment above The policy is simple. We do not need to keep a page for years if no one will ever touch it. That is worthless.. I'm trying to gently say that you are misreading the policy and another look-see might be in order. If you think the Harvard article does indeed prove notability (it was #5 when searching google for the term in quotes) then it would be appropriate to withdraw the nomination. I've done it a time or two myself. Pharmboy (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: Actually, the official policy is that yes it CAN sit around for years waiting for someone to grow it. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- comment And I believe you did in good faith, but your interpretation of the deletion policy is misguided, based on your comment above The policy is simple. We do not need to keep a page for years if no one will ever touch it. That is worthless.. I'm trying to gently say that you are misreading the policy and another look-see might be in order. If you think the Harvard article does indeed prove notability (it was #5 when searching google for the term in quotes) then it would be appropriate to withdraw the nomination. I've done it a time or two myself. Pharmboy (talk) 18:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I did research it but I did not find that Harvard article. (I found a video game though) I nominated it because, at the time, I could see nothing notable about it. It had been in the same way for a long time. Thus the nomination.Metal Head (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- The policy is pretty clear and you don't even have to read the whole policy to find it. In the nutshell section of WP:Deletion policy it states: Pages that can be improved should be edited or tagged, not nominated for deletion Every editor is OBLIGATED to research a topic before nominating it, to insure it is truly not notable and they are not just wasting other's time. Pharmboy (talk) 18:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- And how long has that been a Wikipedia policy? J Milburn (talk) 18:17, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment: The policy is simple. We do not need to keep a page for years if no one will ever touch it. That is worthless.Metal Head (talk) 18:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
-
- Keep: There is nothing in Wikipedia policy requiring constant changing of an article in order to be worth keeping; after a while, there just isn't anything new to say. Does nom have any grounds upon which to declare the subject non-notable? RGTraynor 16:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment I hope it will now be considered "improved". I added a couple of decent references, and smoothed out the technical writing style. Tim Ross·talk 17:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Obvious Keep - Easily meets notability. matt91486 (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Comment It is improved. I have never taken anythign off of AfD. (mainly because of that message that says not to) It was a bad article when I listed it. I looked for sources and could find none, but others have succeeded in finding them. Good job.Undeath (talk) 14:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
- 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.
