Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Retinal waves


 * 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. joe deckertalk to me 16:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Retinal waves

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Very short with low importance and no references.  Gourami Watcher   (Gulp) 22:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  --Lambiam 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. This nomination is really too hasty. The article is the creator's first contribution to Wikipedia, and it was nominated for deletion ten minutes after it was created. Not exactly the warm welcome that is conducive to editor retention. Quoting from our Guide to deletion: "before nominating a recently created article, please consider that many good articles started their Wikilife in pretty bad shape. Unless it is obviously a hopeless case, consider sharing your reservations with the article creator, mentioning your concerns on the article's discussion page, and/or adding a "cleanup" template, instead of bringing the article to AfD." In any case, Google scholar search and JSTOR search shows many hits, so I think the topic is notable. --Lambiam 00:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. The article is certainly in an atrocious state but there is hope that it may improve during the week it is exposed to AfD. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2012 (UTC).
 * Keep A lot of hits in Google and Google Scholar, e.g. . This is a very technical topic but seems absolutely notable and worthy of an interesting article.  To AfD this after one day is insulting to the contributor, and the proposer has not followed guidelines such as WP:BEGIN. --Colapeninsula (talk) 09:30, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep A notable topic which should be improved in accordance with our editing policy. Warden (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep – This topic clearly passes WP:GNG, and its addition to Wikipedia is a benefit to the encyclopedia and to Wikipedia readers. Did the nominator check for sources per WP:BEFORE? Here are two I added to the article:
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2012 (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.
 * — Northamerica1000(talk) 12:25, 17 April 2012 (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.