Login
Login

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Way Ranging

: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. No consensus to delete. The issue of merging can continue on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

=[[Two Way Ranging]]=

:{{la|Two Way Ranging}} ([{{fullurl:Two Way Ranging|wpReason={{urlencode: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two Way Ranging}}&action=delete}} delete]) – (View AfD)(View log)

The article does not contain enough information to stand on its own. The article has one link to it, and does not link out. The article needs significant attention if it is to be retained. TRL (talk) 06:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Keep or possibly merge to Time of arrival: No real deletion rationale supplied by nominator—being orphaned or deadend isn't a reason to delete. Nom doesn't address why the topic is non-notable or unencyclopedic; it looks to me like this is an encyclopedic topic and could have more written about it (in other words, it needs cleanup and expansion rather than deletion). rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 07:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. -- TexasAndroid (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree with the Merge assessment. With the fact that the article has so little content, I do not feel that it fits as a standalone article. If it is not merged, it should not be kept as-is.--TRL (talk) 14:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep {{User|Rjanag}} is quite right. This is an encyclopedic topic that can, should and will have more written about it in the future. The article itself needs a lot of work (hence the other tags), but there is no deadline to make the improvements, so deletion is not the appropriate way to approach it. — Hunter Kahn (c) 23:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep Has multiple papers written, seems to be notable, and I am not satisfied with the deletion rationale provided. Also, I have moved the article to its proper title Two-way ranging (per [http://trs-new.jpl.nasa.gov/dspace/handle/2014/6971 this] and other papers]). -RunningOnBrains(talk page) 16:52, 6 July 2009 (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.