Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flow meter accuracy

 This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record. The result of the debate was KEEP. dbenbenn | talk 23:13, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Flow meter accuracy
Doesn't belong here. --Bart133 18:59, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sorry if I've made a mistake but exactly why doesn't it belong here?


 * Delete for the moment. But Peter Shiels is encouraged to:
 * Keep a copy before it is deleted!
 * Be logged in when editing and sign comments.
 * Look at a few Wiki pages first and learn Wiki style!
 * Start with the basics: Wiki needs a simple flow meter article before this one
 * Come back with this one when it is more Wiki-ish.

-- RHaworth 2005 Jan 22, 33:45 (UTC)
 * This article suffers from bad formatting/overall form more than problematic content. Some of the information might be salvaged. Tips for the author:
 * This article lacks context. Please add a lead section explaining the context (similar to an abstract/summary in a research paper but accessible to non-experts). Assume as little knowledge of the issue at hand as is possible, while still providing useful and accurate specialist information.
 * Divide your work into sections using wiki markup and rely on the wiki system to build the table of contents/overview and number your sections.
 * Refrain from making lists (like "Summary of Typical Flow Computer Uses") without explaining them.
 * Also, format the Bibliography as specified on Cite sources. Phils 19:56, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Cleanup. Don't see why this can't be turned into a good article. However, I agree that Peter Shiels should try to use proper Wiki format. --gcbirzan (talk) 22:34, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Strong keep just because a subject is technical or specific to a certain field doesn't make it delete material. After all, we do have loads of articles dealing with highly specific, obscure, and technical computer topics.  Needs a little cleanup and wikification, but not even all that much. Andrew Lenahan - St ar bli nd  23:55, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs cleanup and expansion. Megan1967 01:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep, needs a docking big cleanup is all. Wyss 07:52, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Keep.  This does belong here.  GRider\talk 17:59, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Delete. Anything worthwhile in the article is original research.  Bacchiad 08:08, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thank you all for the advice, I now understand the issues. If the article is not marked for unconditional deletion I will withdraw it anyway, develop it in the sandbox in Wikipedia format and resubmit.

Thanks

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.