Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Integrated Launch And Recovery Television Surveillance System


 * 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   redirect to  Landing Signal Officer. Black Kite (talk) 09:40, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Integrated Launch And Recovery Television Surveillance System

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Has been tagged for references and notability for over six years, without improvement; time for a discussion about it. Boleyn (talk) 13:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep Deletion spree.  Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:14, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * User:Unscintillating, there is no need to be like that. I've given clear reasons for my nomination. Can you please comment on the article and its notability, not the editor. Boleyn (talk) 20:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Are you accusing me of commenting on other users? Please clarify.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomination seeks to bind AfD volunteers into working on articles of the nominator's choice. That is, indeed, commenting on the nominator and not the nomination. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:13, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * How about you do the WP:BEFORE analysis, including the WP:ATD analysis, report the WP:BEFORE D1 search results, and report on any content policies that would be reasons to delete this article. Proper preparation of the community for a deletion discussion moots my !vote.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:35, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:36, 26 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete doesnt appear to be notable, not even mentioned at Modern United States Navy carrier air operations. MilborneOne (talk) 20:31, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:CIRCULAR. Whether this is mentioned in Modern United States Navy carrier air operations or any other Wikipedia article is irrelevant to determining its notability. James500 (talk) 20:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It is clear to me from the level of coverage in GBooks and GScholar that we should not delete this article. James500 (talk) 21:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. No need to merge, information is already in LSO article. ~Technophant (talk) 04:31, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We don't delete plausible redirects (WP:R). James500 (talk) 10:21, 1 September 2014 (UTC)


 * This could be redirected to Landing Signal Officer. James500 (talk) 10:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 18:06, 4 September 2014 (UTC)




 * Redirect to Landing Signal Officer, where it is already mentioned. That this system exists and is used can be verified in reliable sources. I haven't found multiple in-depth reliable sources needed for notability, but it may just be deficient military search skills on my part. Given verifiability, it is preferable to preserve information rather than delete it, In this case, the topic and its acronym are plausible search terms, so a redirect is warranted. Landing Signal Officer already mentions the system and has a ref verifying its existence and basic use. --Mark viking (talk) 22:03, 5 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep - Critical and longstanding military system. Sources appear to be available:, . If editors think a merge is appropriate, that can be discussed separately after AfD discussion is complete.


 * Comment What's the harm in keeping the article? We needn't worry about some bloat, the system is well discussed and so people may come looking for information on it. I don't see the harm in having a seperate article but I'm not convinced either way. SPACKlick (talk) 08:40, 16 September 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.