Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Specific radiative intensity


 * 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. No arguments for deletion aside from the nominator. (non-admin closure) Ron Ritzman (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Specific radiative intensity

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  )

Looks like it's either OR, or needs to be in some other article UtherSRG (talk) 05:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep for the time being; it's certainly not OR and it may be expanded/linked later. Right now orphan though.- Wolfkeeper  05:15, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Give me a break. I just started to write this article and you try to tell me that it's OR. With the number of references I gave I don't see how you could reasonably allege that. It's actually very standard textbook stuff, as you would see if you followed the references. Maybe it can be moved to some more comprehensive article in due course.Chjoaygame (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I have done some work on this page. It is closely related to several other pages, to which I have put in links, but it has distinct information that is intended to help the reader understand the geometrical aspects of the concept, which are not always made very clear, and are not discussed in the other Wikipedia article that I have so far found. Exactly how to assemble these diverse articles is not clear to me right now.Chjoaygame (talk) 08:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment This business of trying to delete a page the very day it's created - and then complaining that it's orphan and has no references is... counterproductive to the Wiki effort, IMO.  Certainly, warning the author that there may be issues is fair, but Sheesh!  This looks like standard textbook stuff.  The only question in my mind is would it be more appropriate as part of some other article, and, no, I'm not suggesting one at the moment.  I think the material should be kept, quite possibly in this article, but if it were merged appropriately, that might work, too.  David V Houston (talk) 12:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment. A bit of context would be helpful to explain the significance of this subject to readers who tend to get glassy eyed at the sight of the first Greek letter not a part of a Greek word.  This launches into the mathematical physics right off the bat.  A brief statement in plain English about the significance of the concept being explained would go a long way here.  - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions.  Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 14:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep or merge. This AfD is not in compliance with policy. The article may be redundant with material already in Radiance, but the correct solution to that is a merge rather than an AfD. It's not clear to me whether the best solution is to merge this article into Radiance, or to split off the material on spectral radiance from the latter article and merge it with this material to make a new article on Spectral radiance.--Srleffler (talk) 05:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd rather list for AfD so that a good discussion can be had, than try to tweak something on my own that I have no business tweaking. Hence, why my listing didn't include a !vote for delete. I remember a time when AfD stood for "Articles for Discussion"... - UtherSRG (talk) 05:58, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand; not knowing the subject matter you probably didn't have many options for fixing the article or starting a discussion that the right editors would see. Initiating an AfD so fast might have been a bit bite-y, however—even though this was not your intent.--Srleffler (talk) 06:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If you can remember when AfD stood for "Articles for Discussion" then can you please tell the rest of us when that was, as I don't remember such a time? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy Keep The article was already well-sourced when it was nominated. The nomination seems disruptive, contrary to WP:BITE, WP:BEFORE and WP:CIR.  Colonel Warden (talk) 22:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:HEY. As it is now written, it appears to have been fixed to a decent level. Bearian'sBooties 02:42, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Speedy keep as no policy-compliant reason for deletion was provided by the nominator. We don't delete articles because they "look like" something, or because the content might be better merged somewhere else, particularly when that "somewhere else" isn't identified. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2010 (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.