Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Infrared interferometer spectrometer and radiometer


 * 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). Nomination withdrawn, three Keep votes, no outstanding Delete votes. Anarchangel (talk) 22:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Infrared interferometer spectrometer and radiometer

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Appears to be an individual part of a space probe that is not supported by multiple, credible, independent sources that cover the subject in-depth. CorporateM (Talk) 22:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article appears in Template:Satellite and spacecraft instruments (IRIS, under Voyager 1 and 2). The Voyager 1 section Voyager_1 links to NASA here and I'm certain there's more. It seems like a pretty significant instrument to the program. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:58, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep (if necessary, WP:IAR) We could talk about breakout articles, and WP:ATD, but the simple answer IMO is that a standalone article is a good organization within the encyclopedia for this topic.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I am surprised by the responses here. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. It is shown through multiple, reliable sources where this piece of the space probe is the subject of the article. No one has provided any sources that would remotely validate that this subject meets notability criterion. The keep votes are based on criteria like a link to a primary source on the NASA website and the fact that the page is linked to in a template, but these arguments have no basis in Wikipedia policy. CorporateM (Talk) 14:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but your nomination is a WP:IAR argument, and WP:IAR is a policy. Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Took me about ten minutes but I've added two sources that I hope satisfy your concerns. There's about a dozen scientific articles about discoveries from the instrument but I don't have the technical knowledge to describe it in detail. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep. I can see several reliable sources in the article and aside from sourcing the nominator gave no convincing arguments for deletion. The claim that it is not notable because it is an "individual part" of something else is utter nonsense. -- W.  D.   Graham  18:03, 3 June 2014 (UTC)


 * When I nominated the article it didn't have a single good source. Now it does. Nomination withdrawn. CorporateM (Talk) 20:42, 3 June 2014 (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.