Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Very Large Hadron Collider

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). Consensus puts forward sources and suggests rewrite; nominator withdrew nomination. WilliamH (talk) 11:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very Large Hadron Collider

Its a collider that might possibly exist at some undetermined date in the future. WP:CRYSTAL applies here. RogueNinja_talk 02:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, there don't seem to be any sources on this yet. I was a little worried, since when I first saw the title, I had the "D" and "R" in "Hadron" transposed... Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep important idea and project that is well-attested on the web in reliable scientific sources, including Fermilab's web site: [1], [2], [3], [4]. The article understates its importance and the level of active interest surrounding it. JJL (talk) 03:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible keep. This is an extremely notable idea in particle physics. Numerous sources including New York Times are available to assert notability. Nominator may want to review these sources and consider withdrawal per obvious notability. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought this was for the LHC. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I almost did the same thing when I saw that wikipedia was going to delete the Nathan Hale article. Turns out it was another nathan hale. In the revolutionary war. Protonk (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Like the LHC, this is also an extremely notable idea in particle physics. Numerous sources exist to assert notability. Nominator may want to review the available sources and consider withdrawal. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 04:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with changes and sources Clearly the VLHC is an extant project, even on the drawing boards. I would argue it is notable as the follow on to the largest particle accelerator in the world. In that case, it would probably be much better if we found some sources that allowed us to use the words "planned" or "projected" instead of "hypothetical". It would also do to show how this accelerator fits into the plan for future particle physics, maybe cross link it to something on the higgs-boson. Either way, it can't be kept as is but the subject itself deserves an article. Protonk (talk) 04:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep with rewrite. This is a very notable idea, but the way it's presented doesn't make that notability clear. Ketsuekigata (talk) 04:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but, like said above, with serious rewrites and sourcing. Spell4yr (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. Based on the article, I thought it was just made up. RogueNinja_talk 10:51, 18 April 2008 (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.