Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laser integration line
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by WOSlinker (talk | contribs) at 09:51, 19 February 2022 (add missing italics in discussion close to reduce lint errors). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.Revision as of 09:51, 19 February 2022 by WOSlinker (talk | contribs) (add missing italics in discussion close to reduce lint errors)
- 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 (non-admin closure) Notability has been demonstrated; thanks for your contributions. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Laser integration line (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Tagged as unref and non-notable for 5 years Boleyn (talk) 16:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep because the article has now been improved so that it is a legitimate stub and is satisfactorily referenced. As an editorial opinion, I think it could be merged with Laser Mégajoule leaving a redirect (there is already some LIL mention at this target). However, I think this should not be stipulated at AFD because a satisfactory merge requires someone with subject matter knowledge and it is not merely an administrative action. I think the notability of large scale scientific facilities is best considered under Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and LIL is notable in its own right, the references being published by independent scientific journals. Thincat (talk) 21:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Due to the good work of Uncle G and improvements of Thincat, this article has good references and the topic was shown to be notable, based in multiple peer-reviewed papers in reliable journals and per Thincat's reasoning above. Mark viking (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ★☆ DUCKISPEANUTBUTTER☆★ 18:26, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please modify it. Tee hee 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.