Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dangerous restart


 * 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. Re-closing now that issues have been solved. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Dangerous restart

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Created by COI editor, does not appear to meet GNG. There is a lack of independent sources which discuss the topic. –dlthewave ☎ 03:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The article has a number of problems, not least being US-centric, but it is definitely a notable topic in electrical engineering. I'm having trouble finding accessible online sources, but a few snippets discussing the subject should suffice.  This snippet, I think, is this paper based on the snippet page number and this index,
 * John R. Etherton, "Automated maintainability records and robot safety", Proceedings of the Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium, 1987, pp. 135-140, IEEE.
 * This book snippet shows it contains a substantial discussion of the topic,
 * Safety Engineering and Risk Analysis, 2001, page 34, American Society of Mechanical Engineers.
 * SpinningSpark 10:41, 13 November 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep The references appear to indicate notability. FOARP (talk) 13:28, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Not discussed very widely, I'll agree, but definitely a widely-used term of art. Here's another source (conference presentation) that appears to go into some details:
 * Etherto, J. R. (2002, January). Safety-related Machine Controls for Maintenance Risk Reduction. In ASSE Professional Development Conference and Exposition. American Society of Safety Engineers.
 * (this might be related to Spinningspark's first source though.)
 * Overall, I think the concept squeezes through re notability. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:40, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment re the close I undid:, would you please not do this kind of shit? You can't same-day close an active, well-formed AfD discussion with only two participants! -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC) Eish - sorry, senior moment there. It's not a same-day close; week old already. Not sure how I arrived at that conclusion. Apologies; See your talk page. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:48, 20 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment But there is no consensus to delete this nor this seems like a close call to be relisted, and the prime reasoning this was nominated, not meeting WP:GNG per lack of independent sources have been refuted by 2 people (and now you even) with no reply from the AfD creator. Also I have seen a lot of AfD closures with even 1 Delete !vote closures, so I dont think this was a bad closure in my opinion. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:46, 20 November 2018 (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.