Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Isodar


 * 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. Nomination withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Isodar

 * – ( View AfD View log  Stats )

Neologism lacking multiple independent sources, and I can’t find any to support this. Mccapra (talk) 12:55, 2 March 2019 (UTC) Withdraw nomination per discussion below. Mccapra (talk) 20:09, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 15:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Keep Honestly not sure where you looked, because there are sources out the wazoo  (even discounting the electron-scattering thing with the same acronym). The article author has done a faceplant by including nothing but primary references; that does not reflect reality. Most textbooks seem to be critical of the method to some extent, but that doesn't matter re notability, and there is also plenty of practical uptake and trials, as the paper search shows. => Keep and add those secondary sources. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:06, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment thanks you’re right. My search threw up plenty of finds for the term but with different meanings and in ithe fields, not this one. Clearly there are sources to support this use.
 * Withdraw nomination with thanks to Elmidae for identifying sources. Mccapra (talk) 17:18, 2 March 2019 (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.