Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Near Vertical Incidence Skywave

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 on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was KEEP as rewritten by User:Roodog2k. — JIP | Talk 09:23, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Near Vertical Incidence Skywave

Looks like it could be an ad for the company described, though it's so hard to read that I can't be sure. Non-encyclopedic in any case. --Trovatore 06:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

"it's so hard to read"
debatable bitterness. yawn.

"Non-encyclopedic in any case"
I cannot agree with that.
--Fractal3 07:09, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete as badvertising Qaz (talk) 07:41, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep improved version and thanks to Roodog2k for caring enough to reach into the abyss to save it. Qaz (talk) 17:27, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete as advertising bordering on gibberish. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 11:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Keep the rewrite. I had heard of this principle, but I didn't know it was the name for the technique. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 16:58, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: I removed the line (--) below the nomination. It makes it hard to tell them apart. -- Kjkolb 13:02, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete nonsensical advertising. doesn't belong here.--Alhutch 15:37, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep after rewrite. good job.--Alhutch 17:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • keep Near Vertical Incidence Skywave is an established mode of communication using HF-radio. The article needs a lot of cleanup. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 15:41, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

comment I just cleaned-up the article to make it more encyclopedic and readable, though its still a stub; its a notable method of radio communication, esp. in Ham radio. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 16:00, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks fine now. Not anything I know anything about, but assuming it's correct, keep the new version. The old advertising version is apparently unrelated to the new version; can we have it removed from the history? --Trovatore 18:06, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

comment @Roodog2k: ok, cool. thanks. Fractal3 23:09, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

  • comment OK, I added a bit more clarification concerning why you may want to employ NVIS versus VHF radio communications. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 16:33, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
  • comment Thanks for the support! I added even more. I was a little suprised that the subject hadn't been covered. Then again, many of the concepts of NVIS are contrary to those in Ham Radio who chase DX. Roodog2k (Hello there!) 20:51, 13 October 2005 (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 an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.