Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HDSS

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. —Tom Morris (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

HDSS

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

Either this needs to be deleted or someone needs to put the work into expanding it with resources. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have improved the article by rewriting the introduction and adding references, but given that I'm not an expert with HDSS or HDS, I wouldn't know how much to continue. Would another user verify if these Google News and Google Books results are useful to the article? Thanks! SwisterTwister talk 22:10, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like your improvements. I too, am no expert, but know that EETimes.com is a respected journal/website that is neutral in viewpoint and believe the 2001 articles would be good references.Mark viking (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TBr and ley 18:11, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Cheers, Riley Huntley 02:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm not an expert, but between ST's refs and what I'm able to make out with a Google Scholar search, I suspect there is sufficient sourcing available (with effort) to meet WP:GNG. --j⚛e decker ^talk 05:13, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's no time limit on development of articles. Notability of topic now established by Encyclopedia of Optical Engineering and Popular Mechanics refs. -—Kvng 05:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG via the now included refs and also the following (sorry, can't really add them right now).[1][2][3][4] -- Trevj (talk) 09:44, 26 November 2012 (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.