Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orbiter


 * 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. PhilKnight (talk) 16:29, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Orbiter

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

Article is little more than a definition, and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. GW_SimulationsUser Page 17:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Keep - has potential for expansion. Green caterpillar (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep; article has as Green caterpillar says much potential for expansion. Article is linked by ~70 other articles. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. The nominator's concerns are valid about the current incarnation of the article, but I don't think they're valid concerns about the topic; I think there's a lot of room for expansion, which makes this a problem that can be solved through regular editing processes, and thus not a good candidate for deletion.  Celarnor Talk to me  17:45, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. massive room for expansion, lots and lots of material available. I'll take a crack tomorrow. --Forcedtocreateanaccount (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep. Articles in other Wikipedias show this can be expanded into a long article. That it is now a substub is no reason for deletion.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 04:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Valid stub - obviously lots of room for expansion. Dpmuk (talk) 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep. Exists. Expandable. MediaMob (talk) 21:38, 19 August 2008 (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.