Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Underwater Communication using Vector sensor - A new idea

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, article has been renamed to Underwater acoustic communication. GlassCobra 09:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Underwater Communication using Vector sensor - A new idea[edit]

This is an essay or a proposal. It is not an encyclopedia article and never will be. Prod removed by author. JuJube (talk) 02:45, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Yes, I agree. It smacks of original research, despite the references. It's also written in a format that is purely unencyclopedic. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as essay chock full of original research. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 02:51, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and Image:Vixar1.jpg as OR. It's nice that he provides references, though. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:36, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Underwater communication, and clean up. I don't agree that it's content is inherently unencyclopedic, but the unfortunate title makes it seem that way. • Anakin ^(talk) 15:39, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to clean it up a bit. Still contains some original research-y sort of statements that should probably be removed. My advice is keep it and let the normal wiki process improve it. • Anakin ^(talk) 16:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ with impunity as Original Resarch... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:59, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete title shoots it in the foot Will ^(talk) 17:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now but rename to Underwater acoustic communication (with link from Underwater_acoustics#Underwater_communication) with the hope that it will develop into a more general and impartial discussion of this topic. If it doesn't then consider renomination. Qwfp (talk) 17:10, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per nom. RogueNinja_talk 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR. Esradekan Gibb ^"Talk" 04:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as its has all the reference and sources and just rename it will be fine..Vixar_313 —Preceding comment was added at 05:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per the new refs added... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above comments, and WP:HEY. Bearian (talk) 22:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.