Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Target strength

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. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:03, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Target strength

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

One-sentence article on a random technical term, this article has not been expanded in four years and probably never will be. More of a dictionary definition than the subject of an encyclopedia article. Coretheapple (talk) 17:26, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

looks like it needs to be merged into another physics article. NintendoFan (Talk, Contribs) 19:06, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic is notable - see A review of target strength estimation techniques, for example. AFD is not cleanup and stubs aren't dictionary definitions. Warden (talk) 21:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Handbook of Acoustics [1] has a subsection entitled "Target Strength" which demonstrates coverage in WP:RS and that the article has the WP:POTENTIAL to be expanded to be more than a dictionary definition. --Mike Agricola (talk) 22:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In addition to the reliable sources found by Warden and Mike Agricola, Google Scholar shows more than 11,000 hits for the term "target strength". The topic seems highly notable. and the article problems are surmountable--Warden has already made a nice start on improving the article. With a notable topic and surmountable problems, this article should be kept. --Mark viking (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per comments above and sources like;

Principles of Radar and Sonar Signal Processing by François Le Chevalier (Artech House, 2002)
Principles Of Naval Weapon Systems by Craig M. Payne (Naval Institute Press, 2006)

Both cover the subject in quite some detail. I think the sources provided above, and these two, should allow an editor with some understanding of the technical aspects of the subject to expand it quite nicely - probably well beyond its current stub status. Stalwart111 02:05, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I wouldn't object to closing of this AfD if the sentiment to keep is so overwhelming. It just reminded me of another article I encountered that had similar issues and was deleted. Coretheapple (talk) 02:14, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should wait a few more days. Can't hurt. The initial reaction was to merge, I see. Coretheapple (talk) 15:02, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2013 (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.