Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starquake (star)

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further 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. -Splash 07:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Starquake_(star)

This page is wrong; glitches are not thought to be starquakes 63.13.130.200 19:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• Speedy Keep. If the info is wrong, fix it. Fascinating phenomenon; page needs to be expanded. ArcTheLad 20:25, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
• Absolutely keep. Tag with {{{attention}}}. Expand if you have knowledge in this field.—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:19:48, 2005-08-14 (UTC) NB. Please strongly consider removing this from VfD, 63.13.130.200. This is not a candidate for the VfD page. See WP:DEL for VFD criteria. We can't remove the tag of a VfD we didn't initiate, but I believe as initiator you can. The reason I'm asking is that with ~100 pages on VfD/day, the VfD system is already way overloaded. Regards,—Encephalon | ζ | Σ 21:25:57, 2005-08-14 (UTC)
• Speedy keep no reason to delete this. --Etacar11 22:45, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
  • And as far as I know, astronomers still believe oscillations in emissions from a neutron star are due to starquakes: [1]
• The nominator is correct, pulsar timing glitches are not starquakes, but something more complicated. Starquakes do happen, though, it's a separate phenom. But the nominator went about this the wrong way; she should have simply updated the information with greater clarity. Speedy keep. Sdedeo 13:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy keep.--Kross 09:08, August 18, 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.