Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Digital storage oscilloscope

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 speedy keep. Nominator fails to advance an argument for deletion. Merge/redirect discussion can take place on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 10:06, 10 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Digital storage oscilloscope

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Contested speedy. This is so badly written as to be barely recognisable as English, let alone an article on oscilloscopes. If suggesting "merge", please point out just which fragment is worth merging. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Oscilloscope#Digital storage oscilloscope where the subject is already mentioned. The reference in the article should be added to the target which can be expanded from this source. Useful search term. Bridgeplayer (talk) 16:20, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. Agreed that the original article was hopeless, but it's changed since. If it stagnates before being fully developed it can always be merged back into Oscilloscope and leave a redirect behind; there is no need to delete it then either. With that in mind I would request the nominator to withdraw the nomination. Jeh (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning to redirect unless there's a lot of expansion in the article. Mangoe (talk) 17:00, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

redirect as above. What little there is that's not in that article can be merged, but most of it is covered there already.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 17:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nominator stated that "We need an article at Digital storage oscilloscope, and this is appropriate for a stand-alone article, not a merge to Oscilloscope" but then when I happened to do exactly this, after he suggested I look at the topic, he nominated the article for deletion instead. The nomination thus seems to be personal or pointy in nature. Warden (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article in its current state appears to be referenced by tertiary book sources, and by a Wired Magazine article. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I added this source to a new 'Further reading' section in the article, to further qualify topic notability: Hickman, Ian (1997.) "Digital storage oscilloscopes." Newnes. ISBN 0-7506-2856-1. Northamerica1000 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic, with many reliable sources furnishing extensive coverage. It is appropriate to have this stand-alone article in addition to the brief summary in the general article on oscilloscopes. Satisfies WP:N. If it needs more ediging, or the addition of more references from the ample supply (see Google Book search results, numbering over 11,000), then fix it.The nominator should realize that this is not a forum to award points or demerits for how well or poorly an article is written, but instead to discuss whether there are reliable sources with significant coverage to establish the notability of the topic. Edison (talk) 20:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:23, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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.