Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sixth Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources

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. Merge can be discussed outside of AfD. Nominator is a blocked sockpuppet. (non-admin closure) buidhe 06:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Sixth Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Sixth Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

All sources primary, not really any secondary sources found. (The primary sources seem to be dead links, also.) The article is also in very bad shape... King of Scorpions 23:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. King of Scorpions 23:26, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:30, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep as a clearly important survey of radio sources. WP:NOTCLEANUP applies here. See also WP:BEFORE. Could probably be merged into a general Cambridge Survey of Radio Sources, to regroup 1−10C together, however. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 01:08, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

• Keep No secondary sources? Try this one. I've added this and others to the article, too. That said, I do wonder whether a merge might be possible into a single article, rather than randomly deleting one of a series of ten pages that a now blocked sock-puppet happened to have stumbled across. But I'd recommend leaving that to more expert editors.Nick Moyes (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2020 (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.