Talk:Slow-wave threshold

Beginning
I jumped the gun on this page, it can be deleted without much hassle. I plan on expanding it within the next 24 hrs, I just need to find a good source.--Ummel (talk) 21:19, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing a bit out of my league here, as I know only the very basics of things like this, but does this have any application or notability beyond the other article you have just created? If not, it might be an idea to make this into a redirect, to kep all relevant information on one page. If it does have independent notability, feel free to ignore this comment. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

This page is too short. It's just a sentence, that's all. It needs to be either merged or deleted. Victao lopes (talk) 21:20, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * At the moment, this page is just a dicdef, yes, but I am not knowledgeble enough in this field to know if this is a notable subject. If it is, I have no objection in keeping it until it can be expanded. Victao, per what criterion do you propose it to be deleted, and Ummel, if you want it deleted, you can always put up a db-author. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:28, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * this does not look very promising though. Ummel, are you sure you start a referenced, encyclopedic article for this subject? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've added a few more sentences so as to not make it a dicdef. If you'd like to merge it still, please merge it with Slow wave potential. And yes I have references and I believe it could be of encyclopedic value. Once again, if it is still too 'stub-like' go ahead and merge it, it can always be made it's own article again if/when more information is added. I apologize for the effort you've have to expend, next time I'll hold off on submitting the article until I've added all I want.--Ummel (talk) 21:43, 12 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Nah, no big deal. This seems like a decent stub now, though I generaly prefer to keep all information together on closely related subject, with redirects to sections of a larger article, that can always turn into full articles in time. It's a matter of preference though. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 21:48, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been off for an hour, it seems the article is now decent, congrats. Well, I would tag it for speedy per CSD A1, because only a sentence makes it difficult to identify the subject of the article. But the matter is solved now, so there's no need to discuss it anymore. Victao lopes (talk) 22:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)