- 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 (non-admin closure)
Stefan tube
- Stefan tube ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Former WP:PROD removed, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Same author who removed PROD and still had article deleted at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathematic_modeling_of_evaporators SanAnMan ( talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have absolutely no idea what this is. It needs editing very badly, most people can't understand this. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
*Comment. You know, there might actually be a notable topic in there somewhere, but the current version is so unreadable that [WP:TNT]] comes to mind. --
Larry/Traveling_Man (
talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[per my keep vote below]
- Keep. Thanks to @ Uncle G:, it looks like the article has been saved. It is now both readable and has sufficient evidence of notability. -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 20:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep now that dynamite has been applied to what existed as the time of nomination. DMacks ( talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks to Uncle G's complete rewrite, this is a solidly referenced stub. GScholar shows about 174 hits and as the new refs shows, it is in the textbooks. A notable topic and a nice rewrite per WP:HEY suggest keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ SanAnMan: The article has been rewritten with sources that establish notability under WP:GNG. If you withdraw the nomination, we can close this discussion as speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT 1. KSF T C 19:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ KSFT: Agree that WP:TNT has made this article now relevant and passes WP:GNG. The difference now is excellent, kudos to @ Uncle G: for a great rewrite. Request to withdraw nom and Speedy Keep. - SanAnMan ( talk) 19:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.
- 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 (non-admin closure)
Stefan tube
- Stefan tube ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View log · Stats)
- (Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Former WP:PROD removed, fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTTEXTBOOK. Same author who removed PROD and still had article deleted at /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Mathematic_modeling_of_evaporators SanAnMan ( talk) 16:13, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Comment I have absolutely no idea what this is. It needs editing very badly, most people can't understand this. ThePlatypusofDoom ( talk) 16:55, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
*Comment. You know, there might actually be a notable topic in there somewhere, but the current version is so unreadable that [WP:TNT]] comes to mind. --
Larry/Traveling_Man (
talk) 20:34, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[per my keep vote below]
- Keep. Thanks to @ Uncle G:, it looks like the article has been saved. It is now both readable and has sufficient evidence of notability. -- Larry/Traveling_Man ( talk) 20:40, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep now that dynamite has been applied to what existed as the time of nomination. DMacks ( talk) 20:54, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- Keep Thanks to Uncle G's complete rewrite, this is a solidly referenced stub. GScholar shows about 174 hits and as the new refs shows, it is in the textbooks. A notable topic and a nice rewrite per WP:HEY suggest keeping the article. -- Mark viking ( talk) 21:14, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ SanAnMan: The article has been rewritten with sources that establish notability under WP:GNG. If you withdraw the nomination, we can close this discussion as speedy keep under WP:SKCRIT 1. KSF T C 19:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- @ KSFT: Agree that WP:TNT has made this article now relevant and passes WP:GNG. The difference now is excellent, kudos to @ Uncle G: for a great rewrite. Request to withdraw nom and Speedy Keep. - SanAnMan ( talk) 19:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
- 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.